The Local Division The Hague decided to hear both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation (Art. 33(3)(a) UPCA) and not to bifurcate.

In March 2025, the extent to which the claims would be upheld was decided in the oral hearing of the opposition proceedings before the EPO. The Proprietor then purchased the defendant's products for analysis in April 2025...

Intervener: Chainzone Technology (Foshan) Co., Ltd

When deciding on an application to change the language of the proceedings to the language in which the patent was granted according to Art. 49 (5) UPCA)...

Am 17. Oktober 2018 hat der Bundesgerichtshof die Nichtzulassungsbeschwerde von Bigben Interactive GmbH und Bigben Interactive S.A. (I ZR 28/18) gegen die Nichtzulassung der Revision gegen ein ...

Art. 83(3) UPCA must be interpreted such that a valid opt out application requires that it is lodged by or on behalf of all proprietors of all national parts of a European patent...

With this decision the LD Düsseldorf applied Rule 37.2 RoP and determined prior to the closure of the written procedure to proceed with both the action for infringement...

A concurrence of the deadlines for the reply to the Statement of defense and the Defense to a Counterclaim for revocation...

Cardo Systems, Ltd. has initiated infringement proceedings against Shenzhen Ziwu Chuangxin Technology Co., Ltd. and Resosport Limited at the Milan Local Division of the Unified Patent Court. The case involves European Patent EP4240194 and follows specific procedural rules under the UPC framework.

On July 8, 2004, the Spanish Law 20/2003 on Designs has come into force. The Spanish Patent and Trademark Office has already started receiving applications for national designs.

The main aim of the draft is a reform of patent invalidity litigation. Particularly the long duration of the appeal procedure is endangering the effectiveness oft the German patent system.

German utility models offer a unique pathway to intellectual property protection, providing registration within weeks rather than the years typically required for patent approval. This expedited process presents strategic advantages for innovators seeking rapid market protection in Germany's robust IP framework.

Where it is reasonably foreseeable that court-ordered disclosure may require revelation of confidential information, the defendant must raise confidentiality concerns during main proceedings. Failing to do so without adequate justification will typically result in denial of subsequent post-judgment requests

This page appears to be a security verification checkpoint that temporarily blocks access while validating the incoming request. The system implements protective measures to distinguish legitimate users from automated traffic or potential security threats.

The applicable version of the RoP is determined by the filing date of the action, not by the date of subsequent procedural steps (Art. 5 of the Administrative Committee’s decision of 4 November 2025)

Deadline extensions RoP are assessed strictly: party consent does not bind the Court where the extension would jeopardise hearing preparation

The application of the Brussels I Regulation’s (BR) rules to defendants who are not domiciled in a Member State of the UPCA is limited to situations where this is appropriate, regardless of domicile (cf. 71b(2) BR). A prerequisite for accepting jurisdiction is that there must be a connection to the addressed court, which follows from Recitals 13-15 of the BR.

Logging into the UPC's Case Management System does not constitute an "entering of an appearance" to establish jurisdiction under the Brussels Ia Regulation.

The Court of Appeal examines a request for discretionary review in a patent dispute between Optopol Technology and Topcon Corporation concerning EP 2 845 534. The case involves interpretation of procedural rules governing standing and review processes under the Unified Patent Court framework.

The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court examines an application for suspensive effect in appeal proceedings involving patent EP 2 791 402. Chinese technology companies Xingi Technology and Jiangsu Jiuzhou challenge a decision from the Local Division in The Hague brought by Avient Protective Materials B.V. The case involves procedural rules governing suspensive effect applications under the UPC Rules of Procedure.