The correct means to introduce written pleadings outside the regime provided for in the Rules of Procedure is an application pursuant to R. 36 RoP. Such an application...

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.

In response to a request for confidentiality, the respondents asked the Local Division Düsseldorf to permit the disclosure of confidential information in parallel proceedings between...

When interpreting a claim, in addition to its wording, the application instructions and express disclosures in the description of the patent specification must be taken into account (headnote 2).

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)

No reimbursement of court fees after withdrawal on the eve of the pronouncement of the decision on the merrits.

In the event that the weighing of interests of the defendant and the claimant results in a draw, the position of the defendant...

Neither the English nor the German nor the French version state that the fee "has been received by the court". The wording in all languages clearly state that it is sufficient that the court fees.

A case is not "pending before a division of the Court of First Instance" pursuant to Art. 33(2) UPCA, if it is pending in the appeal instance. It is pending before the Court of Appeal if the appeal was filed there.

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

The application filed had a length of 30 pages. Even though two intellectual property titles (a patent and its corressponding supplementary protection certificate) are at issue...

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.

If the language of the proceedings is not the language in which the patent was granted, Art. 49(5) UPCA allows to change the language of the proceedings.

A member of the public does not bear the costs of a request for access to written pleadings and evidence...

The intervener must demonstrate a direct and present legal interest in the specific outcome sought by the supported party, a mere "guiding effect" on future cases does not establish...

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.

The Unified Patent Court is debating whether a disproportionality defense can counter injunction claims in patent cases. While injunctions protect innovation, courts must balance proportionality, considering economic impact, competition, and public interest in individual cases.