Case Law
Article 25: Right to prevent the direct use of the invention

Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division, Order dated 13/05/2025, Sanofi Biotechnologies SAS, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Amgen Inc., Amgen GmbH, Amgen Europe B.V., Amgen NV, Amgen S.R.L., Amgen B.V., Amgen S.A.S. (Case/ Registry number: ACT_597355/2023, ORD_598583/2023)
Example of decision on infringement of a second medical use claim: "181. The nature of the second medical use claim as a purpose-limited product claim includes, on the one hand, the characteristics of a product claim meaning it can be infringed like one (cf.Art. 25(a) UPCA and the infringing acts specified therein). On the other hand, the purpose-limitation contrasts the claim from a “normal” product claim which affords “absolute” protection, regardless of its (intended) use. In order to find infringement of a purpose-limited product claim, the Claimants must therefore prove that the allegedly infringing product fulfils the “use” feature(s) of the claim. [...]
It is the opinion of the Court that, for a finding of infringement of a second medical use claim, the alleged infringer must offer or place the medical product on the market in such way that it leads or may lead to the claimed therapeutic use of which the alleged infringer knows or reasonably should have known that it does. In other words, as an objective element, there must be either a prescription in order to lower Lp(a) levels, or there must be at least circumstances showing that such a use may be expected to occur. In addition, as a subjective element the infringer must know this or reasonably should have known."

Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Local Division, Order dated 13/11/2024, HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.P v. LAMA France (Case/ Registry number: UPC_CFI_358/2023, ORD_598511/2023)
Example of decision on the applicable source of law before 1st June 2023: " The Court considers that there is no need to apply national law to acts of infringement committed before 1st June 2023. The Court considers that it is not relevant to refer to the sources of national law when the sources of substantive law before the UPC for defining what constitutes an act of infringement are articles 25 and 26 of the UPCA."

Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Local Division, Order dated 13/11/2024, HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.P v. LAMA France (Case/ Registry number: UPC_CFI_358/2023, ORD_598511/2023)
Example of decision the absence of obligation to prove that alledged infringer had prior knowledge of the existence of the patent: "In the case of acts of direct infringement within the meaning of Article 25 UPCA, i.e. acts of making, placing on the market or using the infringing product, the applicant has no obligation thereunder to prove that the defendant had prior knowledge of the existence of the patent and of the materiality of the alleged infringement."