Germany: Trials & Appeals & Compensation

Two brothers in Germany have been sentenced to prison terms exceeding three years each for illegally exporting engineering equipment and machinery to Russia. The convictions stem from 65 shipments worth €833,000 that were routed through Turkey and Kyrgyzstan, with the equipment ultimately used in weapons manufacturing.

The Court of Appeal examines procedural and substantive issues arising from parallel infringement and revocation proceedings involving European Patent EP 3 356 109, with jurisdictional implications across multiple European states. The case involves complex questions of court procedure, patent validity challenges, and the application of the Unified Patent Court Agreement provisions.

The Unified Patent Court's Court of Appeal issued a procedural order addressing the admissibility of additional auxiliary requests in parallel appeals brought by Advanced Brain Monitoring against Philips entities. The decision interprets Article 73(4) UPCA and Rule 222.2 RoP in the context of patent revocation proceedings involving EP 2 437 696 B2.

Appeals of cost decisions are subject to a limited ‘marginal review’ for reasonableness and proportionality, not a full re-assessment (R. 221 RoP, R. 156.2 RoP)

Urgency for provisional measures is assessed per patent: delaying filing to consolidate all patents into one application can constitute unreasonable delay under R. 211.4 RoP.

In two parallel infringement proceedings that had been terminated before a decision on the merits was rendered, a law firm applied for access to the parties’ written submissions under R. 262.1(b) RoP, citing educational and advisory purposes. The judge-rapporteur of the Munich LD granted access subject to redactions of confidential information.

When deciding whether to allow a discretionary review, the Court of Appeal must consider whether the impugned order of the Court of First Instance is manifestly erroneous and whether the impugned order raises a fundamental question of law and its review is necessary to ensure a consistent application and interpretation of the Rules of Procedure or any other objective of the discretionary review (CoA, UPC_CoA_489/2024, order of 6 September 2024, Motorola v. Ericsson, para. 4; UPC_CoA_805/2025, order of 1 September 2025, Centripetal v. Keysight, paras. 8 and 11)

The application of the Brussels I Regulation’s (BR) rules to defendants who are not domiciled in a Member State of the UPCA is limited to situations where this is appropriate, regardless of domicile (cf. 71b(2) BR). A prerequisite for accepting jurisdiction is that there must be a connection to the addressed court, which follows from Recitals 13-15 of the BR.

A decision by default against the defendant of the claim or counterclaim may only be given where the facts put forward by the claimant justify the remedy sought and the procedural conduct of the defendant does not preclude giving such decision. R. 355.2 RoP thus only applies when a decision by default is sought “against the defendant of the claim or counterclaim”.