The Unified Patent Court (UPC) issued an appellate ruling on 28 September 2026 allowing a defendant to contest the validity of a patent during an appeal of an infringement judgment. The decision expands the procedural toolbox available to parties defending against UPC infringement orders. Nvidia, the U.S. technology group, is the first high‑profile defendant to benefit from the new scope. The judgment clarifies that validity objections are not confined to the first‑instance proceedings.

Full News Breakdown

• Case Name: Not disclosed in source

• Court: Unified Patent Court

• Panel: Not disclosed in source

• Date: 28 September 2026

• EU Instruments / UK Legislation Cited: European Patent Convention (EPC)

• Key Provisions: Article 113(1) EPC (right to be heard on procedural matters)

• Primary Legal Issue: Whether a defendant may introduce a patent‑validity challenge in an appeal of an infringement decision

• Holding: The defendant is permitted to raise a validity objection during the appeal

• Practical Outcome: Nvidia can now file a revocation or limitation request alongside its infringement appeal

How Does This Affect You?

Before the ruling, practitioners were uncertain whether the UPC’s procedural rules barred validity attacks after the first instance. The court now confirms that such attacks are admissible in the appellate phase, provided the party follows the procedural timetable. This creates a clearer pathway for defendants to combine infringement and validity arguments, but it also introduces new timing considerations for filing. The implications differ for litigators, scholars, and corporate counsel, as outlined below.

For Lawyers & Advocates

• Pending appeal pleadings can incorporate a request for revocation or limitation under Article 113(1) EPC, framing the validity objection as a procedural defence rather than a separate revocation action.

• Litigation checklists may include a “validity‑assessment” step before filing any UPC appeal, capturing all available grounds in a single proceeding.

• The decision serves as authority for arguments that a defendant’s right to be heard extends to validity issues, reducing the incentive to initiate parallel revocation proceedings.

• The court’s potential imposition of stricter deadlines for filing validity objections in appeal creates a strategic incentive for early filing to avoid procedural dismissal.

• Licensing negotiations that depend on patent enforceability should consider that a validity challenge on appeal can shift the bargaining position of licensor and licensee.

For Law Students

The case illustrates how the UPC interprets procedural rights under the EPC, treating validity objections as an integral part of the defence in appeal.
The core doctrinal focus is the interaction between Article 113(1) EPC and the UPC Rules of Procedure concerning the admissibility of new arguments on appeal.
The decision is particularly relevant for the study of:

• EPC procedural law

• UPC Rules of Procedure, especially Articles 12 and 13

• Patent‑infringement litigation strategy

• Comparative EU patent enforcement mechanisms

• Judicial review of procedural safeguards in intellectual‑property courts

Comparable cases include T 1173/97 (EPO Board of Appeal, 1998) on the timing of validity attacks and C‑370/12 (European Court of Justice, 2014) on the scope of procedural rights in patent disputes. Comparing them shows how courts balance the finality of first‑instance decisions with the need to protect parties from invalid patents.

For Businesses

• Technology firms that rely on standard‑essential patents may wish to reassess their risk registers, as a validity challenge can now be mounted in the same appeal that contests alleged infringement, potentially delaying enforcement.

• Companies holding European patents may find it useful to incorporate monitoring for parallel validity attacks into their enforcement strategy, given opponents can now combine both fronts in a single appeal.

• Boards of directors may consider reviewing pending UPC infringement actions to confirm that the legal team has incorporated a validity‑challenge component, reducing the risk of procedural setbacks.

Key Takeaways

• The UPC now expressly permits defendants to raise patent‑validity objections during an infringement appeal, filling a procedural gap in the EPC framework.

• Litigation teams may wish to revise appeal dossiers to embed validity arguments, reducing the need for separate revocation proceedings.

• The court can adjudicate both infringement and validity in one proceeding, limiting the scope for fragmented enforcement actions.

• The UPC’s forthcoming amendment to its Rules of Procedure on filing deadlines for validity objections, slated for adoption in early 2027, warrants monitoring.

• General Counsels may want to audit all active UPC infringement appeals and consider filing any pending validity challenges before the next procedural deadline, ideally by the end of Q4 2026.

Source: [Nvidia Can Challenge Rival's Patent During UPC Appeal](https://www.law360.com/intellectual-property-uk/articles/2530590?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=section