< Back to news and articles

UPC Case Law Summary – January 2025 Edition

Tilman Pfrang, LL.M. | 1st February 2025

The Local Division in Brussels: Equivalent Patent Infringement

In Case No. UPC_CFI_376/2023, the Brussels Local Division explored the doctrine of equivalents through the application of two tests: the Function-Way-Result (FWR) test and the Insubstantial Differences test. These tests, more commonly associated with U.S. patent law, were used to evaluate whether an accused device for the treatment of sleep apnea infringed on a patent in a non-literal manner. The court found that while the accused product performed a similar function to the patented device, it did so in a fundamentally different way, with key structural differences that affected the redirection of forces. This difference prevented a finding of equivalence under both tests. The decision marks an important precedent in the UPC’s approach to equivalence, as it integrates analytical methods inspired by international patent jurisprudence to assess technical claims and infringement.

>> to the decision

UPC Court of Appeal Confirms Jurisdiction Over Damage Determination

The UPC Court of Appeal clarified that the court has jurisdiction to determine damages arising from a national court’s decision on patent infringement. The case involved a scenario where a national court, outside the UPC system, had ruled on the merits of infringement, and the issue of financial compensation was brought before the UPC. The Court of Appeal found that under Article 32(1)(f) UPCA, the UPC retains the authority to assess and award damages linked to infringement decisions, even if the decision on the merits was issued by a national court.

>> to the decision

Public Access to UPC Proceedings Restored

In a procedural ruling, the UPC Court of Appeal reinforced its commitment to transparency by reinstating public access to court hearings and records. The court clarified that privacy in UPC proceedings is an exception rather than the rule, justified only when essential to protect trade secrets, sensitive commercial data, or other confidential information. The parties must proactively request the exclusion of confidential information to prevent public disclosure, as the default rule prioritizes transparency.

>> to the decision

Paris Central Division: Application for Review of an Order

The Paris Central Division addressed an application for procedural review under Rule 333 of the UPC Rules of Procedure and found that an application for review of a (security) order can be admissible “even in absence of a specific and direct legal provision”. However, an application to modify (security) orders must be grounded in new, material facts, not a re-evaluation of previously decided issues. Further, the Local Division in Paris found that the UPC’s calculation of security for costs is tied to the objective value of the proceedings at filing. Later amendments to claims, such as reduced damages, are irrelevant to recalibrating this amount.

>> to the decision