Germany: Trials & Appeals & Compensation

Subscribe
Litigation law, mediation law, and arbitrage law thought leadership, articles, podcasts, videos and webinars from expert sources across the legal world. Explore insights covering civil law, class actions, dispute resolution, libel and defamation and more in relation to litigation, mediation and arbitration.
Article
CoA, July 22, 2026, Order – Admissibility Of New Auxiliary Requests On Appeal Not Determined In Advance, UPC-CoA-63/2026 & UPC-CoA-64/2026
The Unified Patent Court's Court of Appeal issued a procedural order addressing the admissibility of additional auxiliary requests in parallel appeals brought by Advanced Brain Monitoring against Philips entities. The decision interprets Article 73(4) UPCA and Rule 222.2 RoP in the context of patent revocation proceedings involving EP 2 437 696 B2.
Germany IP
BP
Bardehle Pagenberg
Article
CoA, June 29, 2026, Appeal Decision On Public Access To File Under R. 262.1(b) RoP, UPC_CoA_52/2026 And UPC_CoA_53/2026
In two parallel infringement proceedings that had been terminated before a decision on the merits was rendered, a law firm applied for access to the parties’ written submissions under R. 262.1(b) RoP, citing educational and advisory purposes. The judge-rapporteur of the Munich LD granted access subject to redactions of confidential information.
Germany IP
BP
Bardehle Pagenberg
Article
CoA, June 29, 2026, CoA Partially Overturns Broad Evidence Production Order: Limits On Scope Clarified, UPC_CoA_57/2026
The CoA partially overturned a broad evidence production order of the LD Copenhagen and clarified the limits on the scope. The Court of First Instance had ordered Appellant to produce, subject to a penalty payment of up to EUR 1,000 per day of delay, complete construction drawings, manuals and “other materials” provided to customers. Appellant appealed, raising five grounds: disproportionality, lack of evidentiary necessity for process features, fishing expedition / pre-emptive remedies, self-incrimination, and insufficient confidentiality measures.
Germany IP
BP
Bardehle Pagenberg
Article
CoA, May 19, 2026, Order On Request For A Discretionary Review, UPC-CoA-67/2026
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)
Germany IP
BP
Bardehle Pagenberg
Article
LD The Hague, May 19, 2026, Order On Preliminary Objection, UPC_CFI-2228/2025, UPC_CFI-1546/2026
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.
Germany IP
BP
Bardehle Pagenberg
See more

Latest Videos

See more