Tilman Pfrang, LL.M. | 31st March 2025
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