28 January 2026 (late published)
Local Division Milan, Agathon v Intercom and KNARR
UPC_CFI_727/2024; UPC_CFI_493/2025;
Result Interim Conference
Facts
- Infringement proceedings started in 2024.
- Two defendants. Only one defendant (Intercom) filed a counterclaim for revocation.
The judge-rapporteur (“JR”)
- Physical exhibits (infringing and prior art products) have to be submitted to the local Sub-Registry not later than 17 March, 2026.
- Oral hearing takes place on 24 March 2026.
- Certain documents filed by the claimant with their reply to the Statement of Defence are allowed, as they are filed in reaction to the Statement of Defence.
- Parties are allowed to a further brief for discussing the equivalence theories of the Local Division in The Hague and other Divisions.
- Defendant 2 (KNARR) may intervene on the issue of invalidity during the oral hearing, though it did not file a counterclaim for revocation.
- Slides can be used during the oral hearing but have to be sent to the Court and the other party not later than 17 March 2026.
- Parties are allowed to file a final brief of maximum 15 pages summarizing their positions.
Comment
- The order does not mention the representatives of the parties which is very unusual. I further note that if the case started in 2024 (the order does not mention the date of service of the Statement of Claim) and the oral hearing takes place on 17 March 2026, it suggests that the case is not conducted with the speed contemplated in the Rules of Procedure (oral argument in 12 months; decision in 12-14 months).
- You would think that parties would have addressed the doctrine of equivalence (and which test to use) in their written submissions.
- I find it also strange that defendants who never made physical (prior art) products available before, are allowed to do so one week before the hearing. If I would be the claimant I would have at least wanted sufficient time to inspect and study them. Why (assuming that was possible) does the claimant not get these physical products, for instance, a month before the hearing?
- The Rules of Procedure do not foresee in a final brief with a summary of the arguments. Such final briefs undoubtedly lead to discussions about the summary not being correct or containing new arguments etc.
- What an experienced representative would always do in their briefs (which are often too long) is to start with a summary of their arguments (in a structured way!).
10 February 2026 (late published)
Local Division Milan, Schnell v Progress
Cost decision
Facts
- Application for costs by Schnell on 28 November 2025.
- Answer of Progress on 11 December 2025:
- we have appealed the decision on the merits;
- appeal of a revocation decision has suspensive effect (Art. 74(2) UPCA);
- this means that request is untimely;
- application for costs has to be dismissed or alternatively stayed.
The JR
- Schnell’s argument that the suspensive effect only affects the decision as to the revocation of the patent cannot be accepted as this is an arbitrary limitation by the provision’s wording (“an appeal against a decision on actions or counterclaims for revocation (…) shall always have suspensive effect”).
- JR disagrees with the Local Division Paris (cf. Decision of 29 April 2025, Roche v. Tandem, UPC_CFI_831/2025) on cost proceedings being independent from the appeal proceedings against the first instance decision on the merits.
- Filing for costs was not untimely because it was done before Progress appealed.
- JR decides to stay the cost proceedings.
Comment
- Two contradictory decisions of Local Divisions.