Tilman Pfrang, LL.M. | 12th May 2026
This month’s edition focuses on important Court of Appeal and first-instance developments concerning preliminary injunctions, international jurisdiction, recoverable costs, and procedural flexibility in UPC interim proceedings.
Court of Appeal – Abbott Diabetes Care v Sinocare / Menarini
17 April 2026 – UPC_CoA_901/2025
The Court of Appeal overturned the Hague Local Division’s refusal of provisional measures and granted a preliminary injunction in Abbott’s favour. Of particular importance is the Court’s clarification of the “necessity” requirement under Art. 62 UPCA: irreparable harm is not a strict prerequisite. Instead, the assessment is forward-looking and may focus on market dynamics, including price erosion, loss of market share, and lasting structural changes caused by entry into a concentrated market. The Court also confirmed that inventive step must be assessed for the invention as a whole, including features that may be non-technical in isolation if they contribute to a technical effect.
>> to the decision
Hamburg Local Division – Dyson v Dreame
7 April 2026
The Hamburg Local Division confirmed the UPC’s broad international jurisdiction under Art. 4(1) Brussels I Recast over defendants domiciled in UPC Member States, including claims relating to non-UPC territories such as Spain and the UK. At the same time, it adopted a narrower view of co-defendant jurisdiction under Art. 8(1), refusing to anchor UK-related claims merely through regulatory compliance roles. On the merits, the Court granted a preliminary injunction for UPC territory and Spain, but not for the UK.
>> to the decision
Local Division Düsseldorf – Seoul Viosys v expert e-Commerce / expert klein
10 April 2026 – UPC_CFI_1110/2025; UPC_CFI_1111/2025
The Düsseldorf Local Division clarified an important practical issue in UPC cost proceedings. Where a first-instance cost decision has already been enforced, but the underlying merits decision is later reversed on appeal, the earlier cost order loses its legal basis. Amounts already reimbursed may then be reclaimed within the subsequent UPC cost-fixing proceedings rather than through separate recovery action. The Court also confirmed that first-instance agreements on recoverable representative costs do not automatically extend to appeal proceedings.
>> to the decision
Court of Appeal – ONWARD Medical v Niche Biomedical
27 March 2026 – UPC_CoA_898/2025
The Court of Appeal confirmed that preliminary injunction applications may, in principle, rely on restricted claim versions that were not granted. The admissibility of such claim versions depends on the circumstances and fairness to the defendant rather than any categorical prohibition. The appeal nevertheless failed because neither direct nor indirect infringement was established with sufficient certainty. The decision also provides useful guidance on indirect infringement, making clear that mere technical capability is insufficient without objective indications of intended infringing use.
>> to the decision