- in European Union
- with readers working within the Advertising & Public Relations industries
- within Immigration topic(s)
In its decision of 3 October 2025, the UPC Court of Appeal clarified the application of Article 64 UPCA, which governs corrective measures such as recall, removal, and destruction of infringing products. The case concerned an appeal brought by Philips against three Belkin entities and their managing directors, following a finding of infringement by the Munich Local Division in relation to EP 2 867 997, a patent concerning wireless inductive charging under the Qi standard.
The court of first instance (Munich Local Division) had previously denied Philips' request for these remedies. On appeal, the Court reversed that finding, holding that the word "may" in Article 64 does not imply judicial discretion in the ordinary sense. Rather, the provision establishes a presumption in favour of granting such measures, subject only to a disproportionality defence.
The burden to demonstrate disproportionality lies with the defendant. In this case, Belkin failed to substantiate its claim that the measures were unduly burdensome, offering only general assertions. The Court found this insufficient and ordered the recall, removal, and destruction of infringing products across multiple UPC member states.
This decision confirms that corrective measures under Article 64 UPCA are the default and will be granted unless the opposing party provides concrete evidence to the contrary.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
