Tilman Pfrang, LL.M. | 23rd September 2025
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 >>