If the appellant takes full advantage of the 15-day deadline for lodging the Statement of appeal and the Statement of grounds of appeal pursuant...

A request to expedite appeal proceedings, namely a request to shorten any deadlines where possible pursuant to R. 225(e), R.9.3 RoP,

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...

Switzerland is not a Member State within the meaning of the RoP, so that R. 271 RoP and the fiction of service (10 days) provided for in paragraph...

As the Court previously held (cf. LD Düsseldorf – UPC_CFI_355/2025 and UPC_CFI_186/2025 – Fujifilm/Kodak), the focus of appropriateness "is primarily on the amount of costs incurred" and this from an ex ante perspective.

The Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court addressed critical jurisdictional questions regarding the interplay between UPC proceedings for provisional measures and parallel national French actions involving supplementary protection certificates. The court examined whether it was "first seized" under Brussels I recast regulations and whether related national proceedings warranted staying the UPC case or declining jurisdiction.

While the intervener is to be treated as a party pursuant to Rule 315.4 RoP and may be liable for cost reimbursement as such, this is a different question from whether they have to provide...

The revocation of an independent claim does not automatically affect the validity of unchallenged dependent claims, as the latter may possess autonomous patentability due to additional technical features.

A nullity action has been filed at the Unified Patent Court's Central Division Munich challenging the validity of a unitary patent held by BAUSSMANN Collated Fasteners GmbH. The case, brought by Austrian company Raimund Beck Nageltechnik GmbH, concerns European Patent EP 4 283 140 B1 and will be heard by Panel 1 under the procedural rules governing patent nullity proceedings.

The Court of Appeal verifies ex officio compliance with the time limits and rules governing the appeal. When deciding on the admissibility of an appeal, an order rejecting the appeal as...

The Court of Appeal examines whether an application for suspensive effect can be withdrawn when no final decision has been issued and the opposing party provides consent, addressing the procedural requirements under Rule 265.1 of the Rules of Procedure applied mutatis mutandis.

The Düsseldorf Local Division held that a dominant position within the meaning of Article 102 TFEU may arise if smart TVs complying with a common standard...

The Local Division Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court issued an order addressing applications for protection of confidential information in patent infringement proceedings between Yangtze Memory Technologies and Micron Technology entities. The case involves European Patent EP 3 909 047 with jurisdictional implications across Germany and France under the UPC Agreement.

When assessing the requirement for a procedural security, namely the question whether the Claimant has “sufficient means” to compensate the Defendant for the legal costs incurred in the proceedings, only the financial situation of the Claimant should be taken into consideration, but not the financial situation of the holding company behind the Claimant.

A supplier’s potential liability from a defendant’s recourse claim constitutes a “direct and present interest” to intervene in an infringement action under R. 313.1 RoP

For late-stage interim relief requests (Art. 62 UPCA, R. 206-211 RoP), urgency has a specific meaning: the applicant must prove a new, escalating risk justifying immediate action.

It was agreed that number of invalidity attacks should be limited to five or six and the number of auxiliary requests should be limited to about ten.

A Munich Local Division ruling addresses whether a counterclaim for patent revocation that transitions from unconditional to conditional status—dependent on a finding of infringement—remains subject to unconditional limitation requirements under Rule 263.3 of the Rules of Procedure. The case involves Papst Licensing's infringement action against Roborock entities concerning EP 3 030 943, with implications for procedural strategy in UPC patent disputes.

Cost apportionment where success is achieved on only one of several patents at issue: The unsuccessful party may be ordered to bear costs specifically attributable to “its” patent (Art. 69(2) UPCA)

The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court examines the stringent requirements for granting suspensive effect under Article 74(1) UPCA and Rule 223.2 RoP in patent litigation. This decision clarifies when an applicant's interest in maintaining the status quo during an appeal can exceptionally outweigh the respondent's interests in cost proceedings related to revocation actions.