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.

Application for preservation of evidence or inspection of premises implies a request to disclose the report on the outcome...

The recent judgement of the Court of Justice of the European Union in "BSH versus Electrolux" strengthens the options for cross-border patent litigation. What are the implications for the Unified Patent Court...

In a preliminary decision, the Higher Regional Court of Karlsruhe deals with the question which facts are to be taken into consideration ...

EPO Board of Appeal revoking a patent in full renders a parallel UPC revocation action devoid of purpose, triggering disposal under R. 360 RoP without a merits decision

The Unified Patent Court's Court of Appeal issued a procedural order addressing the admissibility of additional auxiliary requests in parallel appeals brought by Advanced Brain Monitoring against Philips entities. The decision interprets Article 73(4) UPCA and Rule 222.2 RoP in the context of patent revocation proceedings involving EP 2 437 696 B2.

A decision by default against the defendant of the claim or counterclaim may only be given where the facts put forward by the claimant justify the remedy sought and the procedural conduct of the defendant does not preclude giving such decision. R. 355.2 RoP thus only applies when a decision by default is sought “against the defendant of the claim or counterclaim”.

The UPC Court of Appeal addresses a procedural application under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure in a patent dispute between SharkNinja Operating LLC and multiple Groupe SEB entities concerning European Patent EP 3 689 198.

The Local Division Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court addresses a request for file inspection in a patent dispute between Franz Kaldewei GmbH & Co. KG and Bette GmbH & Co. KG. The case involves European Patent EP 3 375 337 B1 and procedural matters under Rule 262.1(b) of the Rules of Procedure.

The Local Division Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court examined infringement and revocation claims involving EP 2 077 811, a patent held by Teleflex Life Sciences II LLC and challenged by Speed Care Mineral GmbH. The proceedings addressed questions of patent validity under multiple European Patent Convention articles and the application of the Rules of Procedure in cross-border patent disputes across ten European jurisdictions.

The Hamburg Local Division of the Unified Patent Court addresses an application for provisional measures in patent infringement proceedings involving a European patent related to child safety products. The case involves Cybex GmbH seeking interim relief against NUNA International B.V. and Allison GmbH under the Rules of Procedure governing urgent patent disputes.

The Munich Local Division of the Unified Patent Court addressed critical procedural questions in provisional measures proceedings, examining how prior knowledge of infringement allegations from parallel litigation in other jurisdictions affects the timeline for preparing objections. The court's decision establishes important precedents for balancing swift relief against the fundamental rights of respondents in cross-border patent disputes.

The UPC Court of Appeal addresses a critical question of cost allocation when a patent holder surrenders their patent immediately after a revocation action is initiated. This case examines whether a claimant who files for revocation must bear the costs when the defendant offers no resistance and surrenders the patent at the outset of proceedings.

The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court addresses procedural matters concerning time limits in an appeal case between Belkin International Inc., Belkin B.V., Belkin Limited and Koninklijke Philips N.V. The case involves European Patent EP 2 867 997 and concerns the application of Article 77(1) of the UPCA and various Rules of Procedure.