Tilman Pfrang, LL.M. | 2nd June 2026
This month’s edition focuses on procedural aspects of UPC practice, including the consequences of failing to commence main proceedings after evidence preservation measures, the admissibility of revocation actions against expired patents, urgency in preliminary injunction proceedings, and formal filing requirements before the Court of Appeal.
Local Division Düsseldorf – OTEC v STEROS GPA Innovative
4 May 2026 – UPC_CFI_885/2025
The Düsseldorf Local Division clarified the consequences of failing to file a main action after obtaining ex parte inspection and evidence-preservation measures. Because OTEC did not commence proceedings on the merits within the period prescribed by Art. 60.8 UPCA and Rule 198.1 RoP, the Court lifted the inspection order and ordered the return, destruction, and deletion of all evidence obtained through the measure. However, it rejected a request for compensation, holding that legal costs incurred in the evidence-preservation proceedings do not constitute “damage” under Art. 60.9 UPCA and must instead be addressed in separate cost proceedings.
>> to the decision
Central Division Paris – Huntsman v BASF
22 April 2026 – UPC_CFI_461/2025
The Paris Central Division confirmed that a revocation action may remain admissible even where the patent expired before the action was filed, provided the claimant retains a legitimate legal interest. Such interest existed here because the patentee had already taken steps towards pursuing infringement claims for acts committed during the patent term. The Court also reiterated that it is not bound by the objective technical problem formulated in the patent itself and may formulate its own problem based on the patent’s technical teaching. In addition, the Court stressed that attacks directed against granted claims do not automatically carry over to auxiliary requests; amended claim sets must be challenged specifically.
>> to the decision
Local Division Düsseldorf – Ottobock v Teufel / MedEnvoy
7 May 2026 – UPC_CFI_1928/2025
The Düsseldorf Local Division provided important guidance on urgency under Rule 211.4 RoP. The Court held that the applicant bears the primary burden of explaining when it became aware of a potentially infringing product, what investigations were undertaken, and why the timeline leading to the PI application was justified. At the same time, defendants relying on constructive knowledge must first establish concrete facts indicating that the applicant should have acted earlier. On the facts, the Court considered that Ottobock had not sufficiently explained why technical investigations could not have started earlier and therefore denied provisional measures for lack of urgency.
>> to the decision
Court of Appeal – SharkNinja v Groupe SEB
22 May 2026 – UPC_CoA_61/2026
The Court of Appeal clarified two practical procedural issues. First, a procedural document filed through the CMS must itself bear an electronic signature; authentication through the CMS and completion of the upload process are not sufficient. Secondly, the Court confirmed that Rule 9.3(a) RoP permits genuinely retroactive extensions of time, including where the request for extension is made only after expiry of the original deadline. Applying principles of fairness, the Court validated a corrected filing by granting a one-day retroactive extension. The Court also confirmed that commercially licensed third-party market data may qualify as confidential information for the purposes of Rule 262A RoP.
>> to the decision