According to R. 262A.6 RoP, the number of persons receiving access to confidential information of the other party shall be no greater than necessary.

R. 271.6 (b) RoP applies only for the Statement of claim, not to the Counterclaim for revocation, which must be included in the Statement of defence (see R. 25.1 RoP).

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...

If the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation are withdrawn by the parties, 60% of the court fees can be reimbursed.

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.

To establish jurisdiction, at least the plausible allegation of infringing acts in the country in question is necessary.

The court may, at its discretion, disregard not only unsolicited written submissions in addition to the regular written pleadings provided for in the RoP...

The claimant's request for a warning of daily penalties was denied, as the court had already decided not to set such terms in the main proceedings

The protection of confidential information contained in pleadings and annexes can only be requested within a workflow pursuant to Rule 262...

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.

Preliminary objection is deemed to be proof of service to Chinese defendant

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...

The Local Division The Hague decided to hear both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation (Art. 33(3)(a) UPCA) and not to bifurcate.

In March 2025, the extent to which the claims would be upheld was decided in the oral hearing of the opposition proceedings before the EPO. The Proprietor then purchased the defendant's products for analysis in April 2025...

Intervener: Chainzone Technology (Foshan) Co., Ltd

When deciding on an application to change the language of the proceedings to the language in which the patent was granted according to Art. 49 (5) UPCA)...

Art. 83(3) UPCA must be interpreted such that a valid opt out application requires that it is lodged by or on behalf of all proprietors of all national parts of a European patent...

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.