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

A videoconference with the parties can be designated a separate hearing under Rule 334(d) RoP, which does not preclude an interim conference under Rule 35(b) RoP.

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 Court held that Rule 320 RoP, concerning the restitution of rights, is the lex specialis (more specific rule) and takes precedence over the general provision of Rule 9.3(a) RoP when a party misses a deadline.

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...

A joint hearing of the infringement action and the counterclaim seems to be appropriate in particular for reasons of procedural expediency and avoids the risk of delay...

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...

All service outside the contracting member states is covered by section 2, i.e. Rules 273 and 274 RoP.

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...

Written pleadings are served by the Registry in the electronic CMS of the Court unless service cannot be effected by means of electronic communication (R. 278.1 and 278.2 RoP)

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.

In the absence of a specific fee for a specific case, such a fee is to be charged for the case that is most comparable to the present case according...

Applicant failed to demonstrate that a review of the impugned order is necessary to ensure a consistent application and interpretation of the RoP (point 8 of the Preamble of the RoP) or any other objective...

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.