In an action for revocation, where both parties agreed to a stay, the appeal proceedings have been stayed pending the outcome of parallel opposition proceedings before the EPO Boards of Appeal...

Preparations for the European Unified Patent Court (UPC) are in full swing – not only among judges and law firms, but especially among patent owners.

An unconditional application to reduce the amount of damages claimed shall be considered as an unconditional application under Rule 263.3 RoP.

The original version of a claim of an European patent and any amendments made thereto during the grant proceedings can be used as aid for interpreting the claim.

The determination of the date of service of the complaint and the grant of an extension of the deadline for the statement of defense in agreement with parties is possible.

In October 2025, the UPC Court of Appeal redrew the lines of managing directors' responsibilities. In Philips v. Belkin, it tackled a major question: Can company directors be held liable for patent infringements committed by their company.

Sypox GmbH has initiated revocation proceedings against Topsoe A/S at the Unified Patent Court's Central Division in Munich, challenging the validity of European Patent EP 3 802 413. The case, designated UPC_CFI_894/2026, involves procedural matters under Rule 262A and 262.2 of the Rules of Procedure and Article 58 of the UPC Agreement.

Unitary effect under Article 3(1) of Regulation 1257/2012 requires a patent to be granted for all UPC Member States; a "carve-out" for non-designated states is not permissible.

An applicant who missed the transitional one year period between June 1, 2023, and June 1, 2024 to apply to be admitted as UPC representative...

The Court of Appeal clarifies that a decision under R. 20.2 RoP to deal with a preliminary objection in the main proceedings is not reserved to the judge-rapporteur alone.

When deciding whether to allow a discretionary review, the Court of Appeal must consider whether the impugned order of the Court of First Instance is manifestly erroneous and whether the impugned order raises a fundamental question of law and its review is necessary to ensure a consistent application and interpretation of the Rules of Procedure or any other objective of the discretionary review (CoA, UPC_CoA_489/2024, order of 6 September 2024, Motorola v. Ericsson, para. 4; UPC_CoA_805/2025, order of 1 September 2025, Centripetal v. Keysight, paras. 8 and 11)

In principle, pursuant to Rule 250 RoP, the court may waive payment of the fee for a rehearing in the circumstances contemplated by Rule 245.2(a) or (b) RoP (fundamental procedural defect or criminal offence).

The Unified Patent Court's Court of Appeal examines procedural rules governing appeals in patent litigation between Lionra Technologies Ltd. and Cisco Systems. This case involves the interpretation and application of specific Rules of Procedure in the context of an appeal from a first instance decision concerning European Patent EP 2 201 740.

Costs paid under a first-instance decision are recoverable if that decision is overturned on appeal. The appeal’s outcome invalidates the initial cost order (Rule 151 RoP).

Simply stating that a claimant's registered office is located in Canada does not demonstrate that enforcing a cost order would be unduly burdensome and therefore does not justify an order for security for costs...

A minor deviation in deadlines for multiple defendants makes a request to align them reasonable for procedural efficiency, as per the court’s discretion under R. 9.3(a) RoP.

An obligation to refrain from an act also requires a permanent compliance with effective measurements to ensure that the compliance is uninterrupted and permanent, R. 354.4 RoP.

The Munich Local Division of the Unified Patent Court issued an order regarding a panel review in a patent infringement case between Advanced Standard Communication LLC and Xiaomi entities concerning European Patent EP 3 016 464. The order addresses procedural matters under Rule 158 of the Rules of Procedure and Article 69(4) of the UPC Agreement.

Security for costs application against a claimant company established in Taiwan can be accepted as the facts provided in the case indicate that enforcing a cost decision in Taiwan...

Cardo Systems, Ltd. has initiated infringement proceedings against Shenzhen Ziwu Chuangxin Technology Co., Ltd. and Resosport Limited at the Milan Local Division of the Unified Patent Court. The case involves European Patent EP4240194 and follows specific procedural rules under the UPC framework.