Summary of the Four UPC Decisions

Paris Central Division of the UPC

7 January 2026

00 : 00 – 17 : 36

Admissibility of auxiliary amendment requests and violation of added matter principle

Suinno sued Microsoft for patent infringement in April 2024 before the Paris Central Division. Microsoft filed a counterclaim for revocation. Suinno presented 17 auxiliary requests to amend the patent, but only auxiliary request no. 1 included the complete set of amended claims.

• Rule 30 ROP (UPC Rules of Procedure)
• Article 84 EPC
• Articles 123(2)(3) EPC
• EPO standards regarding added matter

• Patent was revoked due to added matter in claim 1
• Only auxiliary request 1 complied with Rule 30 ROP (filed with complete set of amended claims)
• Auxiliary requests 2-17 were declared inadmissible due to lack of clarity and absence of distinct claim sets
• None of the auxiliary requests would have remedied the identified defect, even if admissible

• Clarifies strict procedural requirements for patent amendment at the UPC: all sets of amended claims must be filed simultaneously with the amendment application and reply to the revocation counterclaim

Paris Central Division of the UPC

12 January 2026

17 : 37 – 23 : 14

UPC jurisdiction to render a decision by default and service requirements under the Hague Convention

WhiteWater West filed a revocation action in April 2025 against American Wave (US company) for patent revocation in France and Germany. American Wave failed to file a defense within the two-month period and did not respond to the proceedings. WhiteWater West requested a decision by default in July 2025.

• Rule 355 ROP (decision by default)
• Rule 277 ROP (service outside member states)
• Hague Convention
• OIJA central authority (United States)

• Court confirmed that service was properly effected via the Hague Convention through OIJA
• A decision by default was granted, emphasizing that expeditious decisions are an objective of the UPCA
• Claim 1 of the patent lacked inventive step according to the new Court of Appeal approach
• Defendant was ordered to bear the costs of the proceedings

Establishes that UPC courts have discretionary power to grant decisions by default when defendants fail to respond and that correct service (via appropriate international mechanisms) is an essential prerequisite

Munich Local Division of the UPC

13 January 2026

23 : 17 – 34 : 53

Application of cost apportionment and re-establishment of rights when parties fail to file cost applications within the prescribed period

Heraus sued Vibrantz for patent infringement. The patent was revoked and the infringement action dismissed with costs apportioned 60-40 (60% to the claimant, 40% to the defendant). One month later, Vibrantz requested a cost decision for 100% of the expenses (~€200,000). Heraus missed the one-month deadline to file its own cost application.

• Rule 151 ROP (application for cost decision),
• Rule 156 RLP (jurisdiction of the judge-rapporteur),
• Rule 320 RLP (re-establishment of rights)

• Both parties in a split cost decision are « successful parties » and must both file a cost application within the one-month period
• Re-establishment of rights was exceptionally granted despite inadequate legal understanding, due to unclear procedural rules
• Court noted that the judge-rapporteur (and not the full panel) had jurisdiction over cost decisions
• One judge (Judge Brintman) issued a dissenting opinion

Critically reminds us that in split cost decisions, both parties must file cost applications within one month; failure by one party risks allowing the other to recover 100% of costs

Düsseldorf Local Division of the UPC

11 February 2026

34 : 58 to the end

Comprehensive assessment of remedies for patent infringement and conditions for granting corrective measures

Canon sued Katoun for infringement of a patent relating to ink cartridges for printers. Katun contested the patent before the EPO (unsuccessfully) and filed a counterclaim for revocation before the UPC. The patent was upheld and infringement confirmed.

• Article 64 UPCA (corrective measures)
• New Court of Appeal guidelines on inventive step
• Article 80 UPCA (publication of decision)
• EU Ecodesign Directive

• Injunction: Granted; defendant’s argument that the patent was a standard-essential patent was rejected
• Grace Period: Refused; defendant cannot invoke the Ecodesign Directive to delay cessation of infringement
• Request for Information: Claimant entitled to receive supporting documents (invoices, delivery notes); electronic format is sufficient
• Destruction of Products: Ordered; burden of proof regarding proportionality rests on the defendant
• Interim Damages:€100,000 awarded based on a 16-month period extrapolated to two years
• Publication of Decision:Authorized on five media outlets for one month, plus on the defendant’s website for one month; two-step test applied

Provides comprehensive guidance on the granting of remedies for patent infringement at the UPC, emphasizing proportionality, burden of proof on defendants, and strict limitations on publication (limited number of outlets and restricted duration)