Tilman Pfrang, LL.M. | 7th October 2026
This month’s edition addresses inventive step where a claim combines several routine modifications, the consequences of overturning an enforced first-instance decision, the limits of evidence-preservation measures, confidentiality protection for document extracts, and the relevance of previous litigation when determining the language of proceedings.
Local Division The Hague – Maxell v Samsung – Inventive step and aggregation of features
10 August 2026 – UPC_CFI_251/2025 and UPC_CFI_769/2025
The Hague Local Division held that several individually routine distinguishing features do not become inventive merely through their combination where they provide unrelated technical functionalities and do not interact to produce an additional technical effect. Applying the Court of Appeal’s developing inventive-step framework, the Court considered such a combination a mere aggregation of obvious modifications. It also clarified that a specific pointer towards the claimed solution is not required where the relevant modification represents a routine next step for the skilled person. Where auxiliary requests form a progressively narrowing hierarchy, the Court may consider the narrowest requests first and, if these lack inventive step, dispose of broader requests containing fewer distinguishing features on the same basis.
Court of Appeal – Fujifilm v Kodak – Enforcement after successful appeal
3 August 2026 – UPC_CoA_28/2026
The Court of Appeal held that where an enforced first-instance infringement decision is subsequently overturned, the decision is generally treated as never having had legal effect. Applying the principle previously established for preliminary injunctions in NanoString v 10x Genomics, the Court set aside penalty orders totalling EUR 1.72 million and ordered repayment of the penalties already paid. The defendant could likewise not be criticised for late or incomplete compliance with obligations that, retrospectively, must be regarded as never having existed. The Court further clarified that the value of enforcement proceedings is determined by the enforcing party’s interest in compliance with the underlying order rather than by the amount of the penalties imposed.
Court of Appeal – WEPA v Essity – Limits of evidence preservation
3 September 2026 – UPC_CoA_113/2026
The Court of Appeal held that Art. 60 UPCA does not permit a bailiff or expert executing evidence-preservation or inspection measures to question the defendant’s personnel about technical details of its products or processes. Practical information necessary to execute the measures, such as passwords or login codes, may be requested, but substantive questioning would have to take place under the Court’s control. Because such questioning had occurred, the expert report had to be redrafted and the original destroyed. The Court also confirmed that Art. 60 extends beyond technical material to promotional and commercial documentation and that neither pending validity proceedings nor an alleged prior use right will normally prevent evidence-preservation measures.
Local Division Munich – CA v Deutsche Telekom – Confidentiality and document extracts
29 July 2026 – UPC_CFI_515/2026 and UPC_CFI_1797/2026
The Munich Local Division held that an extract from a larger document can itself constitute the “unredacted document” for the purposes of Rule 262A.3 RoP. A party seeking confidentiality protection for information contained in an extract is therefore not required to disclose the complete underlying document merely to enable the opposing party to challenge confidentiality. Rule 262A concerns the information actually introduced into the proceedings and does not provide a route to obtain additional material from the underlying document. Whether reliance on an extract sufficiently satisfies a party’s burden of pleading is a separate issue; where the complete document is required as evidence, an application under Rule 190 RoP may be the appropriate procedural route.
President of the Court of First Instance – BF exaQC and ParTec v Google – Language of proceedings
11 August 2026 – UPC_CFI_2082/2026 (LD Mannheim)
The President of the Court of First Instance changed the language of the proceedings from German to English under Art. 49.5 UPCA, despite the claimants being considerably smaller than Google, headquartered in Germany and using German internally. Decisive was their subsequent litigation practice: the claimants had themselves brought comparable UPC infringement actions in English, including against the same defendants and based on one of the patents also asserted in Mannheim. This demonstrated their ability to litigate in English and reduced the weight of the disadvantages associated with their size and domicile. By contrast, conducting the proceedings in German would have required Google to coordinate its English-speaking technical and legal teams through translations within the UPC’s strict procedural deadlines.