Recognitions | Iberian Lawyer – Winners Forty under 40

For the purposes of Article 6 of Rome I, the provisions of a contract defining the terms on which a professional receives or executes a CFD-related order are not covered by the exception provided for in Article 6(4)(d).

Judicial review may extend to the substantive invalidity of the arbitration agreement because it conflicts with mandatory domestic rules — as well as those of the European Union — on consumer protection and, consequently, the concept of public policy encompasses both procedural and substantive public policy.

Article 7 of Act 1/2025 contains two references to time limits which appear to set out two different rules regarding limitation periods. However, Article 7(3) is not a rule on limitation periods.

The newsletter covers the main developments in Pharma & Healthcare legislation and case law.

The Supreme Court clarifies the rules governing direct actions in international cases and the limits of the law governing insurance contracts

Administrative modernisation, major infraestructure projects, defence and energy transition in the new cycle of Portuguese public law.

The newsletter covers the main developments in Pharma & Healthcare legislation and case law.

We analyse the problems that arise when a claim is filed with the UPC for infringement of a unitary patent and, at the same time, for infringement of the validation of the basic European patent in States that are not party to the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court, and the claimant solely limits the unitary patent (because the defendant only files a counterclaim for revocation of the unitary patent with said court, but does not initiate any parallel revocation proceedings with the competent national court against the validations of the basic European patent in States that are not party to said agreement).

This paper analyses the decision of the Mannheim Local Division of 2 October 2025, where the Unified Patent Court (UPC) justifies its jurisdiction on the basis of shipment of products from a UPC territory by company listed as authorized representative in the EC and UK markets as event giving rise to damage. Furthermore, although the applicable law with regard to the infringement of the European patent validated in States that are not party to the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court is the national law of those States, with regard to the scope of patent protection, the UPC imposes on the defendant—unduly—the burden of proving the specifics of national law.