Rule 209 – Examination of the Application for provisional measures
Content
1. Without prejudice to the Court’s decision on the Application for provisional measures, the Court shall
have the discretion – including where the Application is made pursuant to Rule 206.3 – to:
(a) inform the defendant about the Application and invite him to lodge, within a time period to be
specified, an Objection to the Application for provisional measures which shall contain:
(i) the reasons why the Application shall fail;
(ii) the facts and evidence relied on, in particular any challenge to the facts and evidence relied on
by the applicant; and
(iii) where main proceedings on the merits of the case have not yet been started before the Court, the
reasons why the action which will be started before the Court shall fail and the facts and evidence
relied on in support;
(b) summon the parties to an oral hearing;
(c) summon the applicant to an oral hearing without the presence of the defendant.
2. In exercising its discretion pursuant to paragraph 1, the Court shall in particular take into account:
(a) whether the patent has been upheld in an opposition procedure before the European Patent Office or
has been the subject of proceedings in any other court;
(b) the urgency of the action;
(c) whether the applicant has requested provisional measures without hearing the defendant and whether
the reasons for not hearing the defendant appear well-founded; and
(d) any Protective letter filed by the defendant; the Court shall in particular consider summoning parties
to an oral hearing if a relevant Protective letter has been filed by the defendant.
3. In cases of extreme urgency the standing judge appointed in accordance with Rule 345.5 may decide
immediately on the Application for provisional measures and the procedure to be followed on the
Application.
4. If the applicant has applied for provisional measures without hearing the defendant and the Court
decides not to grant provisional measures without hearing the defendant the applicant may withdraw the
Application and may request that the Court order that the Application and the contents of the Application
remain confidential.
5. If the patent the subject of the Application is also the subject of a protective letter pursuant to Rule
207 the applicant may withdraw the Application pursuant to paragraph 4.
Related Cases
- UPC_CFI_515/2024 – Philips v Shenzen
- UPC_CoA_002/2025 – Valinea v Tiru
- UPC_CFI_317/2024, ORD_52116/2024 – Ericsson vs Asustek
- UPC CoA 446/2025 – Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH v Zentiva Portugal, LDA.
- UPC CoA 335/2023 – 10x Genomics, Inc. and President and Fellows of Harvard College v NanoString Technologies Inc, NanoString Technologies Germany GmbH and NanoString Technologies Netherlands B.V.
- UPC CFI No. 342/2025 – A.G.A. S.R.L. and A.C.E.F. S.R.L. v 3V SIGMA S.P.A.
- UPC CFI 712/2025 – F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG and Roche Diabetes Care GmbH v A.Menarini Diagnostics S.r.l., BERLIN-CHEMIE AG and A.Menarini Diagnostics France SASU
- UPC CFI 1443/2025 – Brita SE v Fileder Filter Systems Spółka z o.o.