UPC-Update - BOEHMERT & BOEHMERT

Dr. Michael Rüberg, Attorney at Law at BOEHMERT & BOEHMERT

BSH before the UPC and the German courts – first applications, an emerging tendency and open guiding questions [Update on BSH case law]

6. February 2026IP-Update

Update on the article “BSH as a Gateway to Cross-Border Patent Enforcement: The Regeneron/Bayer vs Formycon and Onesta vs BMW Cases” from December 1, 2025 The CJEU’s decision in BSH v Electrolux (C-339/22) has by now been expressly taken up in several decisions of the UPC, in particular with regard…

CoA clarifies damages in Bhagat/Oerlikon

29. January 2026UPC-Update

In Bhagat/Oerlikon (UPC_CoA_8/2025, decision of December 9, 2025), the CoA clarifies various aspects of the legal principles guiding damages under the UPC framework. The status quo In comparison to the US, damages have led a niche existence in European patent litigation. It has been speculated in the…

Serving Court Documents in China: Lessons from a UPC Case in Milan

21. January 2026UPC-Update

Serving court documents on Chinese defendants remains a challenge in UPC litigation. A recent decision by the Milan Local Division of the EPO points to possible solutions. Background: A Cross-Border Service Challenge In December 2025, the Milan Local Division of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) issued…

BSH as a Gateway to Cross-Border Patent Enforcement: The Regeneron/Bayer vs Formycon and Onesta vs BMW Cases

1. December 2025IP-Update

The CJEU ruling in BSH v. Electrolux (C-339/22) changes the rules of the game. National courts emerge as pivotal nodes in transnational disputes and can rule on patent infringements even if the patent is valid in several countries. Initial practical cases demonstrate the scope of this ruling. With its…

Effective preservation of evidence at the UPC: Guidelines from Brussels, Mannheim, and Düsseldorf

27. November 2025UPC-Update

With its latest decisions, the Unified Patent Court has clarified the instruments of evidence preservation and inspection orders under Article 60 UPCA and Rules 192 et seq. RoP. It is becoming apparent that evidence preservation measures before the UPC are a strategically effective tool. In recent months,…

Changes to the infringing product in ongoing UPC-proceedings

11. November 2025UPC-Update

How to get a statement from the UPC that my once infringing product is no longer infringing Last week we looked at the decision in the case UPC_CFI_386/2024 between HL Display AB and Black Sheep Retail Products B.V. of 10 October 2025 by the Local Division (LD) of The Hague with regards to its implications…

The Unified Patent Court’s “Black Sheep”: Long-Arm Jurisdiction

3. November 2025UPC-Update

Far-reaching jurisdiction of the UPC: balancing efficiency and respect for national courts On 10 October 2025, the Local Division (LD) of The Hague of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) delivered a decision in the case UPC_CFI_386/2024 between HL Display AB and Black Sheep Retail Products B.V. The ruling,…

First Substantive Decisions of the UPC Court of Appeal: Seoul Viosys and Philips v. Belkin

20. October 2025UPC-Update

The decisions provide initial legal certainty on issues of disclosure, interpretation, infringement, and directors’ liability. 1. Context and Significance In October 2025, the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) issued its long-awaited first substantive decisions: (i) the decision…

The UPC and its hardline stance on late filing

13. October 2025UPC-Update

All reasonably available evidence and arguments should be submitted as early as possible. Submitting prior art and arguments based on it at a later stage risks their rejection. Early investment is essential; the respective initial pleadings in the proceedings should be as airtight as possible. In a…