The Court granted destruction of infringing products, but expressly excluded advertising materials. It held that Art.

The Düsseldorf Local Division clarified the consequences for a defendant who fails to engage with the UPC's Case Management System (CMS)...

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.

When a counterclaim for revocation (CCR) is filed jointly with a statement of defense, the time limit for responding to the CCR begins only after the claimant receives the substantive content of the CCR.

The Article 15(2) of the Hague Service Convention is entirely applicable in UPC System, regardless of any additional requirements for service within each Member State.

A law firm, as a member of the public, shall be granted access to pleadings and evidence upon submission of a reasoned request, pursuant to Rule 262.1 RoP. A reasoned request...

The court may, pursuant to Art. 64(4) UPCA and R.158.1 RoP, at its own discretion and upon the defendant's application, order the provision of security for the costs of the proceedings...

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 court clarified the distinction between a deadline's length and starting point under Rule 198.1 RoP. While the length is prescribed, the court can determine...

Exception to the rule of no suspensive effect for appeals against first-instance orders granting access to files...

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 makes clear that, as a rule, the claimant must already set out in the Statement of claim the facts and legal arguments necessary to establish...

When deciding on a request to change the language of proceedings into the language of the patent on grounds of fairness, all relevant circumstances shall be taken into account.

It is not possible to apply for suspensive effect before an appeal is lodged.

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.

Cost determination proceedings must always be initiated at the Court of First Instance, regardless of whether costs arise from first instance or appeal (R. 150 et seq. RoP)

Whether the subject matter of the granted claim extends beyond the content of the application as originally filed is determined by considering what information...

According to R. 355.2 RoP, a decision by default against the defendant may only be given where the facts put forward by the claimant justify the remedy sought...