Case Law
Article 32: Competence of the Court
Court of First Instance - Brussels (BE) Local Division, Order dated 21/03/2025, Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd., Yealink (Europe) Network Technology B.V. v. Barco N.V. (Case/ Registry number: ACT_54438/2024, ORD_68979/2024)
Example of decision on provisional measures holding that urgency runs from the patent’s grant date, so delaying until unitary-effect registration doomed the injunction request: "However, since the UPC has substantive jurisdiction to hear infringement actions or provisional measures for European patents (Art. 3(c) UPCA in conjunction with Art. 32(1)(a) or (c) UPCA), and BARCO was granted a European patent on 12 June 2024, it is not 23 August 2024 (date of the registration of the unitary effect) that should be considered as the objective earliest date for BARCO to file an action with the UPC (either an action for infringement (Art. 32(1)(a) UPCA) or an action for provisional measures (Art. 32(1)(c) UPCA), but indeed rather 12 June 2024. If unitary effect is registered during UPC proceedings, and if such unitary effect would lead to an amendment of the originally sought relief, the applicant has sufficient means to amend its claims (if necessary, by applying R. 263)."
Court of First Instance - Mannheim (DE) Local Division, Order dated 31/01/2025, Rematec GmbH & Co KG v. Europe Forestry B.V. (Case/ Registry number: ACT_576606/2023, ORD_598550/2023)
Example of decision on dismissal of infringement action for lack of patentability following uniform patent interpretation: "In view of the lack of protectability of claims 1 and 15, the admissible infringement action is unfounded without the need for a judicial review of the infringement allegation.
[...] Both the examination of the legal status and the examination of the question of infringement equally always require the (uniform) interpretation of the patent in dispute."
Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division, Order dated 15/11/2024, Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v. Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd., Meril Gmbh (Case/ Registry number: UPC_CFI_15/2023, ORD_598479/2023)
Example of decision on the jurisdiction of UPC for infringement committed before 1st June 2023: "The Unified Patent Court has jurisdiction over acts of infringement committed before the entry into force of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court on 1 June 2023. This is in line with Article 3(c) and 32(1)(a) UPCA, in the absence of any conflicting intertemporal provisions."
Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Central division - Seat, Order dated 17/11/2023, Fives ECL, SAS v. REEL GmbH (Case number UPC_CFI_274/2023->https://www.unified-patent-court.org/en/node/497])
Example of decision on the UPC’s jurisdiction to hear the action for damages or compensation based on the provisional protection conferred by a published European patent application: “Of course, this makes it clear that the UPC should have the broadest possible competence. However, the desire for a broad competence cannot override the catalogue of competences set out in Art. 32 para. 1 UPCA. Art. 32 para. 1 UPCA provides in lit. a) expressly provides for an action relating to the infringement of a patent. This emphasises the UPC’s original competence to review a patent infringement.
Contrary to the plaintiff’s view, the aforementioned understanding does not create a regulatory gap for proceedings to determine the amount of damages from a final national infringement judgement. The plaintiff claims that no court has jurisdiction over the matter after the expiry of the transitional period pursuant to Art. 83 (3) UPCA. This is not correct. Since the application for the determination of damages following national patent infringement proceedings is not subject to any of the jurisdictional elements of Art. 32 para. 1 UPCA, the courts of the Member States have jurisdiction for this under Art. 32 para. 2 UPCA. This jurisdiction remains in place after the end of the transitional period due to the lack of jurisdiction of the UPC.”