The Unified Patent Court (UPC) is a planned future court common to EU Member States which participate in the Unitary Patent system, and it will be part of their judicial system. After a transitional period of 7 years or 14 years at most, it will have exclusive competence in respect of traditional European patents and European patents with unitary effect (Unitary Patents). The UPC is based on the Unified Patent Court Agreement. The Unitary Patent system and the UPC are planned to start functioning once certain ratification conditions have been fulfilled.
On 28 May 2024, the UPC Court of Appeal (in decision UPC_CoA_22/2024) upheld a decision of the Court of First Instance, Central Division (Paris Seat) not to stay revocation proceedings before the UPC pending parallel opposition proceedings before the EPO concerning the same patent. Following previous Court of Appeal decisions, this non-technical appeal was adjudicated…
Proceedings on the merits and proceedings on provisional measures may be lodged separately before the UPC, but it may also be the case that as part of the infringement case provisional measures are requested. In such a case before the Helsinki local division the first instance court held that the UPC was not competent (see…
On 24 April 2024, the UPC’s Central Division in Paris granted Nicoventures Trading Limited access to written pleadings and evidence under RoP 262.1(b) in a patent revocation case brought by NJOY Netherlands B.V. against Juul Labs International, Inc (ORD_587436/2023 in UPC_CFI_316/2023). Nicoventures had made the document access request on 15 November 2023, however the Paris…
On 13 May 2024, the UPC Court of Appeal (CoA) upheld the Munich Local Division’s decision in SES v Hanshow (UPC_CoA_1/2024) that a preliminary injunction should be refused on the basis that there was not sufficient certainty that certain models of Hanshow’s electronic label products infringe SES’ patent. SES is the registered proprietor of the…
During the 12 months since the UPC first opened its doors for business, court users across Europe have been studying the decisions that have been emerging from the various divisions in order to understand the practical application of the Rules of Procedure and the approach of the various judges of the courts. This in turn…
Readers are familiar with the story of the founding of the UPC, which “obliged” its founders to make it an ad hoc Court, not integrated into the European judicial system (with a reinforced cooperation agreement between the members of the UPC). The fragility of this system has provoked much criticism (e.g., our comments here). The…
On 17 April 2024, the Court of Appeal of the UPC handed down its decision concerning the language of proceedings in the (undoubtedly ground-breaking) case of Curio Bioscience v 10x Genomics. Curio had applied in January to have the language of proceedings changed from German to English, but their application was rejected in February at…
There are now three interesting developments, albeit in quite different areas, which have in common the effort to avoid stepping on banana skins on the path towards a more unified patent system. The first one, published last week, was a decision by the Court of Appeal (CoA) itself, which took the opportunity to clarify that…
In a revocation action the patent may be amended by the patent proprietor. According to Rule 30 RoP this should be done with an application; for subsequent amendments the explicit approval of the court should be sought. In the present case the patent proprietor tried to introduce amendments that had also been filed in another…
Last week, we had the opportunity to review the texts regarding the UPC “saisie”, the ex parte orders issued in the OERLIKON and C-KORE cases. In the second case, which is before the Paris local division, the seized party has lodged an appeal against the order. To the best of my knowledge, this is the…
