Tilman Pfrang, LL.M. | 2nd July 2026
This month’s decisions provide further guidance on several key aspects of UPC practice and patent enforcement. The courts address the requirements for establishing infringement by equivalence, the evidentiary significance of common general knowledge, the UPC’s evolving framework for exercising international jurisdiction, questions of competence between UPC divisions, and the temporal scope of remedies under the UPCA.
Local Division Düsseldorf – Wonderland v Cybex – Equivalence
27 May 2026 – UPC_CFI_807/2024, UPC_CFI_334/2025
The Düsseldorf Local Division adopted the four-part test for infringement by equivalence previously developed by the Hague Local Division in Plant-e and Washtower. Applying that test, it held that it is insufficient to demonstrate that the accused embodiment achieves the same overall objective as the patented invention. Instead, the patentee must explain, for each substituted claim feature, why the replacement performs substantially the same technical function. The Court further held that an alleged equivalent will generally not be obvious to the skilled person where it requires a complete redesign of the claimed device rather than a straightforward substitution of technical means. On that basis, the Court rejected infringement by equivalence without considering the Formstein defence.
>> to the decision
Local Division Milan – Pirelli v Sichuan Yuanxing Rubber – Common general knowledge & evidence
26 May 2026 – UPC_CFI_770/2024, UPC_CFI_556/2025
The Milan Local Division confirmed, in line with the EPO Boards of Appeal, that patent literature forms part of the skilled person’s common general knowledge only in exceptional circumstances. Such an exception may exist where a consistent body of patent documents demonstrates that a particular technical approach was generally known, as the Court found for the planar representation of tyre tread patterns. The Court also applied the principle of proximity of evidence, holding that where the claimant provides strong indicia of infringement and the defendant has privileged access to the relevant technical information, the burden of producing evidence may shift to the defendant.
>> to the decision
Court of Appeal – Fujifilm v Kodak – International jurisdiction
2 June 2026 – UPC_CoA_312/2025, UPC_CoA_333/2025, UPC_CoA_880/2025 and UPC_CoA_882/2025
The Court of Appeal consolidated the UPC’s developing case law on international jurisdiction over non-UPC validations of European patents following the CJEU’s judgment in BSH v Electrolux. While confirming that the UPC may hear infringement actions relating to UK and other non-UPC designations where jurisdiction exists under the Brussels I Recast Regulation, the Court’s principal contribution lies in the procedural framework governing such cases. Where validity is challenged before a national court, the UPC may invite the defendant to commence national revocation proceedings, stay the proceedings or defer relief pending the outcome of those proceedings. The Court also clarified that Rule 29(c) RoP permits additional evidence supporting facts already pleaded, confirmed that private prior use is governed by national law, and rejected any general rule that numerical claim limitations automatically include manufacturing tolerances.
>> to the decision
Court of Appeal – Valeo v Bosch – Central Division competence
22 June 2026 – UPC_CoA_4/2026 and UPC_CoA_13/2026
The Court of Appeal held that the third subparagraph of Art. 33.1 UPCA does not establish an exceptional forum but an additional basis of internal competence. Where one of several defendants is established outside the territory of the Contracting Member States, that defendant may anchor proceedings before the Central Division, provided that the requirements of Art. 33.1(b) UPCA – a commercial relationship and the same alleged infringement – are satisfied. Reversing the Paris Central Division, the Court confirmed the Central Division’s competence for the action against all defendants. It further clarified that, when deciding a preliminary objection under Rule 19 RoP, the Court must confine itself to a summary assessment and avoid prejudging issues that also concern the merits.
>> to the decision
Local Division Düsseldorf – Evac v VacDrain – Article 72 UPCA
22 June 2026 – UPC_CFI_811/2024
The Düsseldorf Local Division held that the five-year limitation period under Art. 72 UPCA applies exclusively to actions seeking financial compensation and does not extend to injunctions, which regulate future conduct. It further confirmed that the UPCA applies where infringing acts began before 1 June 2023 but continued after the Agreement entered into force, provided the continued infringement itself occurred after that date. The Court also rejected implied consent based on previous commercial relationships, held that replacing the patented vacuum buffer device was not covered by exhaustion, and confirmed jurisdiction over Chinese defendants based on a test purchase within UPC territory.
>> to the decision