UPC_CFI_492/2025

Under Article 30(1) and (2) EuGVVO, a stay or declaration of lack of jurisdiction in favour of earlier national proceedings was not indicated where the required connection was lacking, the alleged German and French infringements did not involve the same factual and legal situation or a risk of irreconcilable decisions, and deferral would adversely restrict access to the UPC without persuasive countervailing arguments.

Under Article 69 EPC and its Protocol, the patent claim is the decisive basis for determining the scope of protection, but it is interpreted from the skilled person’s perspective with the description and drawings used as explanatory aids; they do not turn the claim into a mere guideline or extend it to subject matter that is only identified as the proprietor’s desired protection.

The same claim-construction principles apply to the assessment of infringement and validity because the claims define the patent’s scope of protection and the proprietor’s rights in the designated Contracting States, subject to the EPC patentability requirements.

Where a claim requires a negative finding that the device is not in the location corresponding to the assigned cleaning order, that finding must be directly and immediately causally responsible for omitting, interrupting or terminating that order; the claim does not encompass non-performance for other reasons.

A request under Rule 190 RoP for production of opposing source code requires a concrete, feature-related explanation identifying which claim features are already considered to be realised and which are not yet established but are probably realised; without that connection between the requested measure and the supporting facts, the request constitutes an impermissible exploratory or fishing inquiry.

A revocation counterclaim may validly be made dependent on a judicial finding of patent infringement, and changing an unconditional revocation counterclaim into one subject to that internal procedural condition remains an unconditional limitation of the counterclaim under Rule 263.3 RoP.

Under Article 76(1) UPCA, the court must decide according to the parties’ requests and may not exceed the relief sought; when a revocation counterclaim is conditioned on a judicial finding of infringement and no such finding is made, the condition is unfulfilled and the court cannot decide the counterclaim.

When counterclaimants make a revocation counterclaim conditional on a finding of infringement and, following the absence of that finding, request that no decision be made on the counterclaim, the costs generated by the undecided counterclaim are treated as unnecessary costs attributable to them under Article 69(3) UPCA.

A party that was wholly or partly unsuccessful in its requests may appeal to the Court of Appeal within two months after service of the decision.

On application by the enforcing party, the Deputy-Registrar issues a certified copy of the enforceable decision or order.