Germany: Patent

The qualification of a party as an SME or the submission of a declaration purporting to establish a party’s SME status pursuant to R. 370.8 RoP is not, in itself, sufficient to dispense with the obligation for said party to provide a security for costs in accordance with R. 158 RoP, if the requirements for the application of that rule are met.

[5] Art. 34 UPCA states that “Decisions of the Court shall cover, in the case of a European patent, the territory of those Contracting Member States for which the European patent has effect”. It is not meant to confine the UPC’s jurisdiction to its own territory. Art. 34 UPCA clarifies that as a rule – unless a more limited scope is requested (cf Art. 43, 76 UPCA) – decisions of the UPC shall cover the territory of all Contracting Member States where a European patent has effect.

[6] Pursuant to R. 360 RoP, if the Court finds that an action has become devoid of purpose and that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on it, it may at any time, on the application of a party or of its own motion, after giving the parties an opportunity to be heard, dispose of the action by way of order.

When deciding whether to allow a discretionary review, the Court of Appeal must consider whether the impugned order of the Court of First Instance is manifestly erroneous and whether the impugned order raises a fundamental question of law and its review is necessary to ensure a consistent application and interpretation of the Rules of Procedure or any other objective of the discretionary review (CoA, UPC_CoA_489/2024, order of 6 September 2024, Motorola v. Ericsson, para. 4; UPC_CoA_805/2025, order of 1 September 2025, Centripetal v. Keysight, paras. 8 and 11)

The application of the Brussels I Regulation’s (BR) rules to defendants who are not domiciled in a Member State of the UPCA is limited to situations where this is appropriate, regardless of domicile (cf. 71b(2) BR). A prerequisite for accepting jurisdiction is that there must be a connection to the addressed court, which follows from Recitals 13-15 of the BR.

A decision by default against the defendant of the claim or counterclaim may only be given where the facts put forward by the claimant justify the remedy sought and the procedural conduct of the defendant does not preclude giving such decision. R. 355.2 RoP thus only applies when a decision by default is sought “against the defendant of the claim or counterclaim”.

The nature of proceedings may justify restricting public access under Art. 45 UPCA, even though R. 262.1(b) RoP does not explicitly differentiate by proceeding type

The skilled person under Art. 56 EPC is a notional figure, i.e., affiliations to specific companies are irrelevant and inadmissible as differentiating characteristics

The admissibility of the documents and arguments submitted is a question of fact. Whether the defendant’s submissions in its rejoinder regarding the motion to amend are relevant...