Unified Patent Court (UPC)

Application for suspensive effect

Casalonga — 2026-01-01T00:00:00Z

1. A party may lodge an Application for suspensive effect, in accordance with Article 74 of the Agreement. The applicant shall pay a fee for the Application in accordance with Part 6.

2. The Application for suspensive effect shall set out:

(a) the reasons why the lodging of the appeal shall have suspensive effect;

(b) the facts, evidence and arguments relied on.

3. The Court of Appeal shall decide the Application without delay.

4. In cases of extreme urgency the applicant may apply at any time without formality for an order for suspensive effect to the standing judge [Rule 345.5 and .8]. The standing judge shall have all the powers of the Court of Appeal and shall decide the procedure to be followed on the application, which may include a subsequent written Appli
...
Please login to continue reading.

New visitor ?

Revocation of provisional measures

Casalonga — 2026-01-01T00:00:00Z

1. The Court shall ensure that provisional measures are revoked or otherwise cease to have effect, upon request of the defendant, without prejudice to the damages which may be claimed, if, within a time period not exceeding 31 calendar days or 20 working days, whichever is the longer, from the date specified in the Court's order, the applicant does not start proceedings on the merits of the case before the Court. When specifying the date, the Court shall take due account, where applicable, of the date on which the Report referred to in Rule 196.4 shall be presented.

2. Where provisional measures are revoked, or where they lapse due to any act or omission by the applicant, or where it is subsequently found that there has been no infringement or threat of infringement of the patent, th
...
Please login to continue reading.

New visitor ?

Court fees

Casalonga — 2026-01-01T00:00:00Z

1. Court fees provided for in these Rules shall be paid in accordance with the provisions contained in this Part and the table of fees adopted by the Administrative Committee pursuant to Article 36 (3) of the Agreement (hereinafter: table of fees). The level of the Court fees with respect to inflation shall be reviewed by the Administrative Committee every two years.

2. A fixed fee shall be paid in accordance with Section I (fixed fees) of the table of fees for the following actions at the Court of First Instance:

(a) Infringement action or counterclaims concerning licenses [Rule 15 , Art. 32 (1) (a) UPCA],

(b) Counterclaim for infringement [Rule 53],

(d) Action for compensation for licenc
...
Please login to continue reading.

New visitor ?

Enforcement

Casalonga — 2026-01-01T00:00:00Z

1. Subject to Rule 118.8 and 352 decisions and orders of the Court shall be directly enforceable from their date of service in each Contracting Member State. Enforcement shall take place in accordance with the enforcement procedures and conditions governed by the law of the particular Contracting Member State where enforcement takes place.

2. Where during an action an enforceable decision or order of the Court is subsequently varied or revoked, the Court may order the party which has enforced such decision or order, upon the request of the party against whom the decision or order has been enforced, to provide appropriate compensation for any injury caused by the enforcement. Rule 125 shall apply mutatis mutandis. Where an enforceable decision or order has been made pursuant to a finding of infringe
...
Please login to continue reading.

New visitor ?

Challenge to the decision to reject an appeal as inadmissible

Casalonga — 2026-01-01T00:00:00Z

1. The appellant may challenge a decision to reject the appeal as inadmissible under Rules 224.1 or 233.2 within one month of service of the decision, without providing new grounds of appeal.

2. The action shall be assigned to a panel according to Rule 345.3 and .8.

3. If a decision to reject an appeal as inadmissible is set aside, the appeal shall take its normal course.

4. The appellant shall pay a fee for the challenge in accordance with Part 6.

entry into force: 1 January 2026
...
Please login to continue reading.

New visitor ?

Fee for the action for a declaration of non-infringement

Casalonga — 2026-01-01T00:00:00Z

The claimant shall pay the fixed fee and, where applicable, the value-based fee for the action for a declaration of non-infringement including the action relating to the use of the invention prior to the granting of the patent or to the right based on prior use of the invention in accordance with Part 6. Rule 15.2 and Rule 16.3 to .5 shall apply mutatis mutandis.

entry into force: 1 January 2026
...
Please login to continue reading.

New visitor ?

Determination of value-based fee for the infringement action

Casalonga — 2026-01-01T00:00:00Z

1. The value of the infringement action including an action for compensation derived from the provisional protection conferred by a published European patent application shall be determined by the judge-rapporteur under Rule 370.6, taking into account the value as assessed by the parties, by way of an order during the interim procedure.

2. Where the value of the infringement action exceeds EUR 500.000, the claimant shall pay a value- based fee for the infringement action, in accordance with Part 6. Rule 16.3 to .5 shall apply mutatis mutandis.

entry into force: 1 January 2026
...
Please login to continue reading.

New visitor ?

Fee for the infringement action

Casalonga — 2026-01-01T00:00:00Z

1. The claimant shall pay the fixed fee and, where applicable, the value based fee for the infringement action in accordance with Part 6.

2. The Statement of claim shall not be deemed to have been lodged until the fixed fee and, where applicable, the value based fee for the infringement action has been paid, unless otherwise provided.

3. Paragraphs 1. and 2. apply mutatis mutandis to counterclaims concerning licenses.

Relation with Agreement: Articles 36(3)-, 70- and 71-

entry into force: 1 January 2026
...
Please login to continue reading.

New visitor ?

Lodging of the Defence to the Application to amend the patent, the Reply to the Defence and the Rejoinder to the Reply

Casalonga — 2025-09-08T17:00:35Z

Court of First Instance - Hamburg (DE) Local Division, Order dated 28/04/2025, Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi Inc. (Case/ Registry number: App_17575/2025, ORD_17804/2025)
Example of decision on admissibility of further substantiation in reply as a timely deepening of earlier arguments: "The rules of procedure recognise in Rule 32.3 RoP, for good reason, the possibility of further elaborating on one's own submission depending on the response of the opposing party, because the defence of the opposing party to the submitted auxiliary requests [...] is not entirely predictable [...] The principle of procedural economy allows the parties [...] to avoid repetition [...] As long as these conditions are met, these are not new auxiliary motions that would require approval by the court under Rule 30.2 RoP."

Fee for the infringement action

Casalonga — 2025-09-02T18:04:19Z

Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division, Order dated 11/03/2025, Syngenta Limited (Case/ Registry number: App_2747/2025, ORD_11873/2025)
Example of decision on proceedings considered commenced upon electronic filing: "Neither the English, German nor the French version states that the fee "has been received by the court". The wording in all languages clearly states that it is sufficient that the court fees have been paid for the statement of claim to be deemed to have been lodged (per se and not when): R. 15 (2) RoP does not specify the date of filing)."