January’s decisions and orders further refine the UPC’s practice. The Paris Local Division addressed urgency, added matter and the evidentiary threshold for software infringement at PI stage. The Munich Local Division clarified the limits of “possible infringing use” for medical devices and dealt with the cost consequences of conditional counterclaims. The Paris Central Division issued detailed guidance on how auxiliary requests must be drafted under Rule 30 RoP. Finally, the Düsseldorf Local Division demonstrated a pragmatic approach to stalled service abroad in PI proceedings against a China-based seller.
Paris Local Division (UPC_CFI_808/2025, Order of 23 January 2026)
In Guardant Health v Sophia Genetics, the Paris Local Division refused provisional measures concerning three liquid biopsy and bioinformatics patents. The Court dealt, first, with urgency under Rule 211.4 RoP and held that a three-month preparation period may be acceptable in a technically complex multi-patent case. It distinguished between general market awareness and sufficiently specific technical knowledge enabling a substantiated infringement analysis, accepting as the relevant starting point the date on which the applicant first had concrete product information allowing a meaningful technical assessment. On validity, the Court found that two patents were more likely than not invalid for added matter, rejecting any “reservoir” approach that seeks to assemble claim combinations from scattered passages without a clear pointer in the parent disclosure. It considered multiple unprompted selections from lists – such as selecting specific cancers and a particular gene-panel structure – as strongly indicative of added matter. As to the third patent, the application failed on infringement: the Court held that press releases and high-level marketing materials were insufficient to establish software-based infringement with the “sufficient degree of certainty” required by Rule 211.2 RoP, stressing the need for deeper technical insight into how the accused platform actually processes data.
>> to the decision
Munich Local Division (UPC_CFI_628/2024; UPC_CFI_125/2025, Decision of 13 January 2026)
In Emboline v AorticLab, the Munich Local Division dismissed an infringement action relating to an embolic protection device. The dispute turned on whether the accused device implemented a “graspable structure … engageable by a hook” for retrieval within a catheter. While the Court reaffirmed that infringement is not necessarily excluded merely because a product is typically used in a non-infringing way, it introduced an important limitation for medical devices: a merely hypothetical claim-compliant use does not suffice where the alleged implementation would arise only in an abnormal, unsafe, or non-standard emergency scenario. The Court also dealt with a revocation counterclaim that the defendant converted at the oral hearing into a request conditional upon a finding of infringement. It treated this change as a limitation within the meaning of Rule 263.3 RoP and held that conditional counterclaims are not excluded as a matter of principle. However, because infringement was denied, the condition did not occur and no validity decision could be rendered under Art. 76.1 UPCA. The Court nevertheless ordered the counterclaimant to bear the costs generated by the counterclaim under Art. 69.3 UPCA, treating them as unnecessary costs caused by the defendant’s procedural structuring; overall, given the mirrored values, each party bore its own costs.
>> to the decision
Paris Central Division (UPC_CFI_433/2024, Decision of 7 January 2026)
In Microsoft v Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing, the Paris seat of the Central Division revoked EP 2 671 173 in its entirety and provided extensive guidance on the admissibility and presentation of auxiliary requests under Rule 30 RoP. The Court distinguished between objective admissibility requirements – such as compliance with the Rule 30 deadline, inclusion of at least one amendment, and formulation in the language of the patent – and discretionary requirements relating to intelligibility, adequate explanation (including on Art. 84 EPC and Art. 123(2)/(3) EPC), and whether requests are reasonable in number. The Court’s central message was that amendments must be immediately intelligible without the Court reconstructing what the proprietor “must have meant”, consistent with the front-loaded structure of the RoP and the practical need for register-ready claim sets. It held that mere deletion may not require a consolidated document, but substantive amendments generally require filing a complete amended claim set within the Rule 30 deadline.
>> to the decision
Düsseldorf Local Division (UPC_CFI_515/2025, Order of 19 December 2025; follow-up to 17 October 2025)
In Hewlett-Packard Development Company v Shenzhen Moan Technology, the Düsseldorf Local Division issued a follow-up order completing the provisional-measures package against a China-based defendant selling printer cartridges via Amazon. With service in China stalled, the Court relied on “good service” under Rule 275.2 RoP, deeming the steps taken to bring the application to the defendant’s attention sufficient and treating service as effective as of the date set in its earlier order. The Court proceeded by way of a regular PI order notwithstanding the defendant’s non-participation, rejecting the notion that a non-participating defendant should trigger default-judgment mechanics under Rule 355 RoP and emphasising that the PI regime under Rules 205 et seq. RoP follows its own structure. On urgency (Rule 211.4 RoP), the Court accepted HP’s tight evidence-gathering timeline—rapid test purchases, laboratory testing, and compilation of the infringement record—finding no unreasonable delay where the application was filed promptly once the evidentiary record was complete. The Court also declined to order enforcement security under Rule 211.5 RoP, exercising discretion in light of the defendant’s lack of engagement and the absence of apparent grounds necessitating a bond.
>> to the decision
This month’s UPC decisions span critical developments in claim construction, inventive step, remedies, director liability, and jurisdictional authority. Notably, the Central Division Paris distances itself from the EPO’s problem-solution approach, while the Court of Appeal clarifies the UPC’s institutional legitimacy and solidifies pan-European enforcement tools under Art. 64 UPCA.
Central Division Paris (UPC_CFI_189/2024 & UPC_CFI_434/2024, Decision of 20 October 2025) – Holistic Inventive Step and Tailored Injunction in Valve Litigation
In Meril v. Edwards, the Paris Central Division ruled on EP 4 151 181 B1 (heart valves), notably rejecting the EPO’s feature-by-feature problem-solution approach in favour of a holistic inventive-step examination. The Court emphasised that the invention must be considered as a whole and criticised hindsight-biased formulations of the objective technical problem. The Court also upheld 17 auxiliary requests as admissible, confirming that complexity and multiple attacks justify their number. On added matter, the Court found an intermediate generalisation (removal of “heart” from “heart valve”) to violate Art. 76(1) EPC. Importantly, the injunction granted under Art. 63 UPCA was narrowed: XL-sized valves were exempted to preserve treatment options for certain patients, recognising a legitimate public-health interest. The Court rejected routing such exemptions through the patentee’s “Medical Request Portal”, holding that access must remain independent of competitor consent.
>> to the decision
Local Division Düsseldorf (UPC_CFI_115/2024 & UPC_CFI_377/2024, Decision of 15 October 2025) – “Same Invention” and Material Selection in Line with EPO
In Hartmann Packaging v. Omni-Pac, the Düsseldorf Local Division addressed priority entitlement under Art. 87 EPC and inventive step in material selection. It reaffirmed that a valid priority claim requires direct and unambiguous disclosure of the claimed subject-matter, consistent with Art. 123(2) EPC standards. On inventive step, the Court held that selecting a material from a limited, known group of options – here, pulp compositions for moulded packaging – did not involve an inventive step.
>> to the decision
Court of Appeal (UPC_CoA_288/2025, UPC_CoA_290/2025 & UPC_CoA_291/2025, Decision of 6 October 2025) – Milan Validly Replaces London; Rule 19.1 RoP Is Exhaustive
In Roku v. Dolby and Sun Patent Trust, Roku had challenged the UPC’s international jurisdiction and the legality of Milan replacing London as branch of the Central Division. The Court held that Milan’s designation by the Administrative Committee was valid under Art. 87.2 UPCA by analogy. The UPC’s framework was confirmed to be fully compatible with EU law, including Arts. 19 TEU and 267 TFEU. Additionally, the CoA confirmed that appeal fees apply per appeal, even for substantively identical cases.
>> to the decision
Court of Appeal (UPC_CoA_534/2024 & UPC_CoA_683/2024, Decision of 3 October 2025) – “Offering”, Director Liability, and Art. 64 UPCA Remedies
In Philips v. Belkin, the CoA clarified the scope of “offering” under Art. 25 UPCA, confirming it has an autonomous economic meaning: even non-binding product presentations (e.g., via local-language websites) may amount to infringing offers. The Court upheld injunctions and damages against Belkin’s corporate entities but reversed the injunctions against managing directors, stressing that director liability requires intentional or knowing misconduct – mere management is insufficient. Importantly, the CoA reinstated recall, removal, and destruction as default remedies under Art. 64 UPCA, subject only to disproportionality defences. Requests for electronic disclosure must be timely; new forms of relief raised only on appeal will be inadmissible.
>> to the decision
This month’s decisions and orders include a trade-fair inspection order, strict diligence under Rule 263 RoP (case amendments), clarifications on direct infringement by component supply, and the non-extendability of deadlines for unitary effect requests.
Local Division Düsseldorf (UPC_CFI_885/2025, Order of 22 September 2025) – Ex Parte Inspection Granted at EMO Trade Fair
The Düsseldorf Local Division authorised an ex parte inspection and evidence preservation under Art. 60 UPCA and Rules 192 et seq. RoP. The Court found a plausible case for infringement of EP 2 983 864 B1 by the PRO500 polishing unit exhibited at EMO Hannover 2025. The inspection order permitted a court-appointed expert, assisted by a bailiff, to operate the machine, record data, and if needed, seize one unit. The Court emphasised urgency and evanescence of evidence, rejecting a “test buy” as impractical. The expert’s report is initially confidential; OTEC will only receive it after redaction of any trade secrets. No security was ordered, as the inspection posed limited risk.
>> to the decision
Court of Appeal (UPC_CoA_807/2025, Decision of 2 September 2025) – Strict Diligence Required for Amending Revocation Case (Rule 263 RoP)
In CeraCon v. Sunstar, the Court of Appeal dismissed an attempt to introduce a new novelty attack based on EP 3 868 480 months after the original revocation counterclaim. The Mannheim Local Division had denied the amendment, and the CoA affirmed, holding that Rule 263.2 RoP imposes a high bar: parties must show that the amendment could not have been made earlier with reasonable diligence. Here, the new prior art had been easily found with the same search strategy earlier. The CoA found no manifest error in the LD’s refusal and declined to override the panel’s discretion. This ruling reinforces the UPC’s front-loaded character and its intolerance of tactical delay in prior art submissions.
>> to the decision
Local Division Mannheim (UPC_CFI_425/2024, Decision of 16 September 2025) – Infringement by Supply of Components only
In a dispute between GESTRA AG and Babcock Wanson regarding EP 3 057 932 B1, the Mannheim Division addressed whether infringement may arise when allegedly infringing components (valve body, actuator, adapter) are supplied in combination but not yet assembled. The Court confirmed infringement under Art. 25 UPCA (direct infringement), finding that the delivery of the parts in functional coordination sufficed, even if final assembly occurred only after delivery. The Court found no exhaustion under Art. 29 UPCA, as there was no authorised first sale. It also reaffirmed that technical function and interdependence of the parts was sufficient to show that they were “specially adapted means” under Art. 26 UPCA. The decision provides welcome clarity on infringement in modular or component-based delivery scenarios.
>> to the decision
Court of Appeal (UPC_CoA_601/2025, Decision of 12 September 2025) – Strict Deadline for Unitary Effect Requests Confirmed
The Court of Appeal confirmed the decision of the Central Divisoin (reported in our August edition) and dismissed a challenge against the EPO’s rejection of a late-filed request for unitary effect, filed more than one month after publication of the grant. The patentee invoked IT problems and confusion about the deadline but failed to demonstrate a procedural error or exceptional justification. The CoA held that the one-month deadline under Rule 6(1) UPR is strict and cannot be extended by analogy to Rule 134 EPC or by discretionary review under the UPCA. The decision further confirms the UPC’s deferential approach to EPO decisions on unitary effect and leaves no room for post-deadline rescue attempts, reinforcing legal certainty in the post-grant phase.
>> to the decision
This month’s decisions further clarify key aspects of UPC litigation, including indirect infringement, claim construction, service formalities, and cost allocation in revocation proceedings. The rulings from the Local Divisions in Munich and Düsseldorf and the Central Division Branches in Milan and Paris offer important guidance for both procedural and substantive strategy.
Local Division Munich (UPC_CFI_248/2024, Decision of 22 August 2025) – BRITA v. AQUASHIELD: Claim Construction, Exhaustion, and Indirect Infringement
In a landmark ruling, the Munich Local Division upheld EP 2 301 873 B1 in amended form and found infringement by AQUASHIELD. The Court clarified that a purpose-limited feature – a filter being suitable to interact with a “control valve” – does not require that function to be performed, only that the structure allows for it. The Court dismissed novelty objections and confirmed that exhaustion does not apply to inventive parts that are replaced beyond mere maintenance. On indirect infringement, the Court granted a limited remedy: rather than broad injunctive relief under Art. 64 UPCA, it imposed a duty to warn customers and required contractual undertakings from the infringer to prevent further use. The patent was upheld on Auxiliary Request 16.
To the decision >>
Local Division Düsseldorf (UPC_CFI_346/2024, Decision of 22 July 2025) – Service at a Trade Fair Booth Is Valid
The Düsseldorf Local Division confirmed that personal service at an international trade fair booth (here: the defendant’s stand in Cologne) constitutes valid service under Rule 271 RoP. The Court reasoned that the booth personnel were acting as commercial agents capable of receiving legal documents. After no defence was filed, the Court granted a default judgment under Rule 355 RoP, including a permanent injunction, recall, and costs. The ruling has broad implications for international defendants who participate in trade fairs within the UPC territory – it confirms that such presence may suffice for initiating and continuing legal proceedings under UPC service rules.
To the decision >>
Central Division Milan (UPC_CFI_612/2024, Decision of 26 July 2025) – Unitary Effect Refusal by EPO Upheld by UPC
The Milan seat of the Central Division dismissed a request to annul the EPO’s rejection of a request for unitary effect filed too late under Art. 9(1)(g) Regulation (EU) 1257/2012. The patentee argued that ambiguous EPO communications and technical issues had led to the delay. The Court disagreed, finding that the one-month deadline is strict and must be adhered to. It confirmed that the EPO’s administrative rejection did not involve a procedural defect under Rule 97 RoP and that the UPC has no discretion to reopen or review such rejections on equitable grounds. Note: With order of 16 September 2025, the Court of Appeal confirmed.
To the decision >>
Central Division Paris (UPC_CFI_239/2024, Decision of 28 July 2025) – Narrowing Amendment Saves Patent; Costs Split 70/30
In revocation proceedings against EP 2 875 923 B1, the patentee Essetre Holding filed an immediate, unconditional main request limiting the claim to a machine with a single working surface shared between two frames. The Court construed the phrase “a working surface” to mean “one” surface, supported by the description’s emphasis on eliminating dual-table setups. This narrowed claim overcame the prior art, and the revocation action was dismissed insofar. However, the Court held that the challenger was partially successful – since the granted patent would likely not have survived – and awarded 70% of costs against the challenger, 30% against the patentee. The decision confirms that even proactive narrowing by the patentee cannot shield them from cost consequences.
To the decision >>
June and July saw key decisions from the Court of Appeal and the Mannheim Local Division on representative qualifications, rehearing thresholds, territorial scope of UPC jurisdiction post-BSH, and confidential information access.
Court of Appeal (APL_32076/2025; UPC_CoA_614/2025, Order of 24 July 2025) – No Extensions Beyond Rule 12.1 Transitional Period for EPLC Eligibility
In a decisive order, the President of the Court of Appeal rejected a European Patent Attorney’s petition to be entered on the list of UPC representatives based on a non-accredited Italian course completed prior to 2020. The request was filed after the one-year transitional period under Rule 12.1(a) of the EPLC Rules, which expired on 3 June 2024. The Court held that this transitional pathway was time-limited and could not be revived by equity, legal certainty, or IT-related difficulties. Outside the window, only accredited EPLC certificates (Rule 2) or legal diplomas (Rule 11) confer eligibility. Arguments analogising to re-establishment under Rule 320 RoP were also dismissed. The ruling confirms that transitional access to the UPC list closed definitively and will not be reopened under equitable considerations or procedural leniency.
To the decision >>
Mannheim Local Division (UPC_CFI_359/2023, Decision of 18 July 2025) – UPC Jurisdiction over UK Infringement Confirmed Post-BSH
The Mannheim Local Division applied the CJEU’s guidance in BSH Hausgeräte to confirm jurisdiction over UK-territorial infringement of EP 3 476 616. The defendant, Kodak, is EU-domiciled, and the court found that Art. 71b Brussels Ia – interpreted in light of BSH – permits the UPC to adjudicate UK acts on an inter partes basis. However, the court reiterated that it lacks power to issue erga omnes UK validity rulings or amend the UK register. Kodak’s defensive invalidity plea succeeded, with the court finding the UK claims obvious in light of previously submitted prior art. FUJIFILM’s auxiliary requests failed for lack of clarity and procedural compliance. The ruling underscores that while the UPC can assess UK infringement and validity defensively, formal relief affecting non-UPCA validations must remain territorially limited.
To the decision >>
Court of Appeal (UPC_CoA_405/2024, Decision of 19 June 2025) – High Threshold for Rehearing; Familiarity with EPO Case Law Expected
The Court of Appeal rejected Alexion’s application for rehearing under Art. 81(1)(b) UPCA, following dismissal of its prior appeal against a refusal of provisional measures. The Court found no “fundamental procedural defect”, reaffirming that this extraordinary remedy requires a defect so severe it undermines the legitimacy of the process. Disagreement with the Court’s claim interpretation or evidentiary assessment does not suffice. Importantly, the CoA confirmed that representatives before the UPC must be familiar with relevant EPO jurisprudence – especially decisions from the Boards of Appeal and the Enlarged Board. These, while not binding, form part of the applicable legal context and must be anticipated and addressed in party submissions. The decision reinforces the UPC’s expectations regarding representative competence and procedural awareness.
To the decision >>
Court of Appeal (UPC_CoA_221/2025, 222/2025, 223/2025, Order of 3 July 2025) – Strict Limits on Confidentiality Access Under Rule 262A
In a standard-essential patent (SEP) dispute between NST and Qualcomm, the Court of Appeal upheld the Munich Local Division’s decision to permit only one US-based attorney access to Qualcomm’s confidential documents. NST had requested access for multiple members of its US litigation team, arguing their deep involvement and technical expertise. The Court found that Rule 262A must be narrowly interpreted and that access must be strictly necessary. It declined to admit further US counsel, particularly as a technical expert with access was already in place and NST failed to identify specific, additional need. Qualcomm’s cross-appeal seeking to exclude even Mr. Stringfield was also rejected. The ruling highlights the UPC’s commitment to confidentiality protections, especially where documents may have strategic value in parallel US litigation.
To the decision>>
This month’s decisions and orders highlight key developments in added matter, inventive step, second medical use claims, procedural timing for validity attacks, and preliminary injunctions with EU-wide reach. The UPC continues to refine its procedural and substantive standards.
Local Division Paris (UPC_CFI_163/2024, Decision of 23 May 2025) – Intermediate Generalisations and Territorial Scope under Art. 34 UPCA
In a decision dated 23 May 2025 concerning EP 3 155 936 B1 (juice squeezing module), the Paris Local Division allowed Hurom’s unconditional request to amend the claims but ultimately revoked the amended patent for lack of inventive step. The Court rejected objections under Art. 123(2) EPC, holding that the allegedly omitted features were not inextricably linked to the claimed subject-matter. It found the amended claims directly and unambiguously derivable from the application as filed. However, inventive step was denied over a combination of two prior art documents (CN202365584U and KR20130016748A). The Paris panel also clarified that objections under Art. 34 UPCA relate to the territorial effect of UPC decisions – not to jurisdiction – and may be raised outside the preliminary objection stage under Rule 19 RoP. The infringement claim concerning Poland failed for lack of factual substantiation, and the patent was revoked in all designated UPCA states.
Local Division Düsseldorf (UPC_CFI_505/2024, Decision of 13 May 2025) – Pleading Ignorance Rejected and No Infringement of Second Medical Use Claim
On 13 May 2025, the Düsseldorf Local Division dismissed an infringement action concerning EP 3 536 712 B1, a divisional claiming a second medical use of PCSK9 inhibitors for reducing Lp(a). The Court ruled that the evidence submitted did not establish that Repatha® was used for the claimed therapeutic indication. The decision is notable procedurally for its strong rejection of general denials or “pleading ignorance”, a practice permitted under § 138(4) ZPO in German civil litigation. The UPC held that under Rule 171.2 RoP, facts not specifically contested are deemed admitted and that evasive denials are insufficient. Substantively, the Court confirmed the claim’s validity under Art. 54(5) EPC and held that scientific uncertainty around Lp(a) metabolism justified an inventive step.
Local Division Düsseldorf (Procedural Order of 8 May 2025) – New Prior Art or New Lines of Attack in Revocation Replies Require Justification
In a procedural order issued on 8 May 2025, the Düsseldorf Local Division clarified the requirements for introducing new prior art or new arguments in reply to a revocation counterclaim under Rule 263 RoP. The Court held that such replies represent an amendment of the case and are only admissible if the defendant demonstrates due diligence and absence of procedural prejudice to the claimant. Even new attacks based on already-cited prior art must meet this threshold if introduced for the first time at the reply stage.
Court of Appeal (UPC_CoA_768/2024, Order of 30 April 2025) – Court Grants Cross-Border Preliminary Injunction and Clarifies Claim Construction
On 30 April 2025, the Court of Appeal overturned the Milan Central Division’s refusal and issued a preliminary injunction covering 17 UPCA member states (excluding Romania) in favour of Insulet Corporation against EOFlow. The dispute concerned patch pump devices and EP 4 201 327. The CoA clarified that claim construction is a question of law for the Court, not experts, and found that the prior art did not disclose the specific clutch mechanism required by the claim. Inventive step was confirmed, and infringement was deemed likely. The absence of a cease-and-desist declaration justified the assumption of risk of continuation. The Court granted broad relief, including pan-European injunctive relief, disclosure obligations under Art. 67 UPCA, penalty payments, and full cost reimbursement. The case confirms that the UPC may grant sweeping provisional measures even beyond countries where the patentee actively markets its product.
This month’s editions addresses critical issues of jurisdiction, transparency, procedural fairness, and substantive patent law. Highlights include further refinement of the rules governing public access to documents, clarification on suspensive effect in appeal proceedings, the Milan Division’s affirmation of jurisdiction over non-UPCA designations, and the reliance on the problem-solution approach in assessing inventive step.
Court of Appeal (UPC_CoA_5/2025, Decision of 25 April 2025) – Clarification on Public Access to Case Documents
In its decision of 25 April 2025, the Court of Appeal addressed a request under Rule 262.1(b) RoP filed by Nicoventures Trading Ltd, seeking public access to the written pleadings and evidence in the appeal case APL_289/2025. The Court clarified the scope and limits of public access to documents in UPC proceedings, stressing that such access must be justified, specific, and cannot include forward-looking requests for future submissions not yet filed. Although the Court partially granted access, it rejected broad or speculative document requests, underscoring the UPC’s commitment to balancing transparency and procedural safeguards. The ruling also highlighted that the Court may assess whether the requested disclosure would interfere with the fairness of the proceedings or the protection of confidential information.
Court of Appeal (UPC_CoA_312/2025 et al., Decision of 17 April 2025) – High Threshold for Granting Suspensive Effect in Appeals
On 17 April 2025, the Court of Appeal dismissed an application for suspensive effect filed by Kodak following the Mannheim Local Division’s infringement decision in favour of Fujifilm. The Court confirmed that appeals before the UPC do not automatically suspend enforcement of first-instance decisions. Under Rule 223 RoP, suspensive effect may only be granted if there is a risk of serious and irreparable harm, and the appeal is not prima facie unfounded. Kodak had relied on uncontested factual circumstances, but the Court held that these alone do not establish an automatic legal consequence. Instead, the Court independently assessed whether those facts justified legal relief.
Local Division Milan (UPC_CFI_792/2024, Decision of 8 April 2025) – Affirmation of UPC Jurisdiction Beyond UPCA Territory
In a jurisdictional ruling dated 8 April 2025, the Local Division Milan confirmed that the UPC may exercise jurisdiction over infringement actions involving national parts of a European patent validated outside the territory of the UPCA. The dispute arose between two Italian parties—X System S.r.l. and Alpinestars S.p.A.—concerning EP 3 938 451. Alpinestars had objected to the UPC’s jurisdiction with respect to designations in countries not participating in the UPCA, but the Court rejected this argument. Drawing on Art. 31 UPCA and the CJEU’s BSH/Electrolux decision (C-339/22), the Milan Division reasoned that international jurisdiction arises from the domicile of the defendant in a UPCA Member State, even where the alleged infringement involves non-UPCA territories. The Court emphasised that the UPC is entitled to assess infringement for EP validations outside the UPCA if connected to the same facts and parties.
Local Division Munich (UPC_CFI_501/2023, Decision of 4 April 2025) – EPO Problem-Solution Approach Confirmed for Inventive Step Assessment
In its judgment of 4 April 2025, the Munich Local Division upheld the validity of EP 3 669 828 B2 in proceedings brought by Edwards Lifesciences Corporation against Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. The case concerned a counterclaim for revocation filed alongside infringement proceedings, requiring the court to examine inventive step. Applying the well-established EPO problem-solution approach, the panel identified the closest prior art, the distinguishing features of the invention, and the objective technical problem (note: I does not appear as if this is to be understood as deviation from the “any-realistic-starting-point-practice” of the UPC to which the LD Munich explicitly refers). The Court’s reasoning confirms that the UPC will align closely with EPO Boards of Appeal jurisprudence on Art. 56 EPC issues. The decision also addressed group infringement under Art. 33(1)(b) UPCA and clarified the role of claim construction in interpreting functional features. The result reflects the UPC’s growing jurisprudence on substantive patent law and its harmonisation with existing European standards.
Court of Appeal (UPC_CoA_289/2025, Procedural Order of 24 March 2025) – Strict Limits on Additional Written Submissions
In a procedural order dated 24 March 2025, the Court of Appeal ruled on Amazon’s request to submit further written observations shortly before an oral hearing. The Court denied the request, reiterating that additional written submissions beyond the appeal brief and response are only permitted in exceptional cases under Rule 242.2 RoP. It emphasised the importance of procedural efficiency and fairness, particularly in appeal proceedings where timelines are more compressed. The decision underscores that parties must raise all relevant arguments in their principal briefs unless newly emerged circumstances justify an exception.
Local Division Paris (UPC_CFI_760/2023) – Jurisdiction over Non-UPC EP Designations Confirmed
On 21 March 2025, in a procedural order concerning EP 4 153 830, the Local Division Paris rejected a preliminary objection challenging the UPC’s jurisdiction over the UK, Spanish, and Swiss designations of a European patent. The court affirmed international jurisdiction based on Art. 31 UPCA, Brussels I bis and the Lugano Convention, drawing heavily on the CJEU’s recent BSH v. Electrolux ruling (C-339/22). It confirmed that infringement actions concerning EP parts in non-UPCA states may be brought before the UPC, provided the defendant is domiciled in a contracting Member State. Art. 34 UPCA was not addressed, but the court underlined its obligation to follow Union law in line with CJEU case law.
>> to the decision
Local Division Mannheim (UPC_CFI_159/2024) – Intertemporal Law and Post-BSH Jurisdictional Clarity
On 11 March 2025, the Mannheim Division tackled jurisdictional issues and the applicable substantive law in infringement proceedings relating to EP 2 028 981. Infringement acts post-1 June 2023 were governed by the UPCA, whereas earlier acts remained subject to national law. For continuous acts spanning the UPCA’s entry into force, the UPCA was applied, subject to each party’s right to rely on more favourable national provisions. Importantly, the right to information under Arts. 67–68 UPCA was interpreted to cover the pre-UPCA period. Following BSH, the court separated proceedings concerning non-UPC states (e.g. PL, TR, UK) to ensure procedural fairness and expedite enforcement.
>> to the decision
Local Division Düsseldorf (UPC_CFI_459/2023) – No Tolerance for Late Invalidity Attacks
On 7 March 2025, in a revocation counterclaim involving EP 2 011 218 B1, the Düsseldorf Division dismissed arguments on patent validity raised for the first time during oral proceedings. The court reaffirmed the UPC’s strict procedural discipline, holding that surprise tactics undermine fairness and must be avoided. Late arguments may be admissible if raised with the reply to the counterclaim defence, but not at the hearing. The approach is consistent with the earlier decision of the Central Division Paris (UPC_CFI_265/2023), which has taken a particularly rigorous stance on procedural discipline.
>> to the decision
Court of Appeal (UPC_CoA_382/2024) – General Injunctions Based on Single Act Confirmed
On 14 February 2025, in provisional proceedings between Abbott Diabetes Care and Sibionics, the Court of Appeal confirmed that a general injunction may be issued on the basis of a single proven infringing act, such as offering a product for sale. The court held that Art. 62(1) UPCA does not require limiting injunctions to specific products or acts. It further rejected urgency objections, noting that Abbott’s technical investigation justified the delay. On substantive issues, the CoA addressed claim construction (means-plus-function), intermediate generalisations, and the availability of Art. 67 UPCA measures (e.g. origin and distribution info) in interim proceedings.
>> to the decision
UPC Asserts Long-Arm Jurisdiction Beyond EU Borders
In a groundbreaking decision (Case No. UPC_CFI_376/2023) – as a prequel to the CJEU decisions summarized below – the UPC extended its authority to address patent infringement acts occurring outside the European Union, including the UK. The court justified its jurisdiction by noting that the alleged infringer operated in multiple EU jurisdictions covered by the UPC, aligning with Article 71(b) of the Brussels Ibis Regulation. This precedent allows patent holders to pursue coordinated enforcement across borders, even in non-UPC territories, potentially complicating litigation strategies for businesses operating both within and outside the UPC’s direct reach.
>> to the decision
Munich Local Division Addresses Jurisdiction and Preliminary Objections
On February 5, 2025, the UPC’s Local Division in Munich clarified procedural and jurisdictional issues regarding counterclaims for revocation, specifically addressing a second counterclaim for revocation lodged by the same party before the same Division. The UPC Local Division in Munich confirmed that Rule 19 of the Rules of Procedure, which regulates preliminary objections to jurisdiction, extends to counterclaims for revocation. Further, the Munich LD ruled that Article 33(2) UPCA prevents multiple counterclaims on the same patent between the same parties within the same division.
>> to the decision
Clarification on In-House Legal Representation
In an order dated February 11, 2025, the UPC’s Court of Appeal clarified the concept of “independence” under Article 48(5) UPCA. The court confirmed that corporate representatives or major shareholders with extensive administrative and financial powers within a company may not represent that company before the UPC. However, in-house counsel and European patent attorneys employed by the litigant may act as representatives if they can demonstrate the capacity to act independently, ensuring unbiased representation.
>> to the decision
CJEU Ruling on Cross-Border Patent Infringement and Jurisdiction
The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) issued a landmark decision (Case C‑339/22, BSH Hausgeräte GmbH v Electrolux AB) on February 25, 2025, clarifying jurisdiction in cross-border patent disputes. The ruling determined that when patent validity is challenged solely as a defense in an infringement action, the court of the defendant’s domicile retains jurisdiction. This applies even if the patent is validated in non-EU countries, allowing the domicile court to assess validity inter partes. This decision may enhance the UPC’s attractiveness but could also introduce competition from national courts in handling such disputes.
>> to the decision
1. FRAND Developments in Munich
The Munich Local Division underscored implementer obligations in FRAND disputes, emphasizing the need for prompt counteroffers, adequate security, and clear disclosure of SEP use. Failure to meet these obligations can lead to limited review of the SEP holder’s licensing offer. While the court aligned with the Huawei v. ZTE framework, it highlighted procedural strictness that places the burden on implementers.
2. FRAND Precedents in Mannheim
The Mannheim Local Division set a significant precedent in Panasonic v. Oppo, focusing on good-faith negotiations under the FRAND framework. The court clarified that implementers must show unconditional willingness to conclude a license, and fragmented jurisdictional proposals will not suffice. This decision aligns with traditional German jurisprudence but establishes a robust foundation for UPC SEP litigation.
3. Common General Knowledge at the UPC
The Paris Central Division provided insights into the treatment of common general knowledge in patent validity disputes. The Central Division rejected an overly expansive view of common general knowledge, holding that it must be widely accepted and easily accessible. This decision reflects a commitment to a stricter evidentiary standard.
4. Revocation Action in Paris
The Paris Central Division reaffirmed the importance of the “front-loaded” procedural system under the Rules of Procedure (RoP) of the UPC. Parties must present their full case, including all relevant facts and evidence, as early as possible. However, the Court underscored that this principle must be balanced with proportionality and procedural efficiency, ensuring that parties are not burdened with unnecessary tasks or excessive documentation.