Ausgangs-Basisraten

Keine Sachentscheidungen im aktuellen Umfang.

• Berufungen448

• Court of Appeal442 fällePI-Erteilungsquote: 0%Verletzungsquote: —Nichtigerklärungsquote: —
• Paris CD4 fällePI-Erteilungsquote: —Verletzungsquote: —Nichtigerklärungsquote: —
• Milan CD2 fällePI-Erteilungsquote: —Verletzungsquote: —Nichtigerklärungsquote: —

• 2026-03-25UPC_CoA_528/2024Court of AppealZurückgenommenSanofi and Regeneron withdrew their application for rehearing (R.245 RoP) concerning the Court of Appeal's decision of 25 November 2025 (UPC_CoA_528/2024 and UPC_CoA_529/2024) which had rejected the revocation of EP 3 666 797 and set aside the Central Division Munich's first-instance decision. The application for withdrawal was permitted. The decision covers both UPC_CoA_528/2024 and UPC_CoA_529/2024. Court fees were to be reimbursed accordingly.
• 2026-03-24UPC_CoA_44/2026Court of AppealNur prozessualOrder of the Court of Appeal (single judge) on an application for suspensive effect (Rule 223 RoP) filed by ALPINA Coffee Systems GmbH in its appeal against a Düsseldorf Local Division decision largely upholding CUP&CINO's infringement claim for EP 3 398 487 (milk frother). The Court of Appeal addressed the admissibility and merits of the suspensive effect application. The underlying first-instance decision had found infringement of EP 3 398 487 and rejected the revocation counterclaim. No final ruling on suspensive effect is visible from the excerpt; the order concerns procedural steps and assessment of the application.
• 2026-03-24UPC_CoA_935/2025Court of AppealNur prozessualCourt of Appeal dismissed the application for suspensive effect of an appeal against a default judgment of The Hague Local Division. The Court held that an application for suspensive effect must set out all reasons, facts, evidence and arguments at once; a second application is inadmissible unless new submissions could not reasonably have been made earlier.
• 2026-03-18UPC_CoA_930/2025Court of AppealAbgewiesenThe Court of Appeal dismissed EOFlow's appeal against the Milan Central Division's order denying EOFlow's request under R. 262.2 RoP to keep certain information confidential. The Court held that information disclosed to the opposing party without an order under R. 262A RoP or other restriction loses its character as a trade secret. A R. 262.2 RoP request does not automatically protect information from disclosure by the other party. Information relating to a settlement agreement was also no longer confidential because its substance had already been stated in the published court order.
• 2026-03-16UPC_CoA_3/2026Court of AppealAbgewiesenThe Court of Appeal dismissed Ecovacs' appeal against the Düsseldorf Local Division's refusal to grant an ex parte order for inspection and preservation of evidence (R. 197 RoP) regarding Roborock vacuum cleaners at the IFA 2025 exhibition. The Court held that Ecovacs had breached its duty of candour under R. 192.3 RoP by omitting and distorting material facts (including proportionality-relevant information) in its ex parte application, and that such omissions cannot be cured by later submissions. The appeal was therefore rejected and Ecovacs ordered to bear Roborock's appeal costs.
• 2026-03-16UPC_CoA_904/2025Court of AppealNur prozessualThe Court of Appeal (Panel 1a) dismissed VIVO's appeal against the Paris Local Division's order deferring the decision on the admissibility of claim A.II of the Statement of Claim to the main proceedings. The CoA confirmed that the panel (not only the judge-rapporteur) was competent to make the deferral decision, and that the Paris LD did not exceed its margin of discretion. The appeal also concerned UPC_CoA_905/2025 (EP 3 852 468).
• 2026-03-13UPC_CoA_922/2025Court of AppealAbgewiesenOrder by the Court of Appeal (Panel 1d, 13 March 2026) partially reversing the Paris Local Division's order of 27 November 2025 on international jurisdiction. The CoA held that UPC jurisdiction based on Art. 7(2) Brussels Ibis (place of damage) is limited to UPC territory and does not extend to infringement in non-member states (Switzerland, Spain, UK, Ireland, Norway, Poland). The first-instance decision to assert jurisdiction over non-UPC territories was set aside because Keeex's Statement of claim lacked the necessary facts to justify Art. 71b(3) jurisdiction. The case concerns patent EP 2 949 070 and defendants Adobe, OpenAI, Truepic, Joint Development Foundation and others.
• 2026-03-13UPC_CoA_922/2025Court of AppealAbgewiesenFrench version of the Court of Appeal order of 13 March 2026 (UPC_CoA_922/2025 and related cases 923-925/2025). Same decision as the English version: partial reversal of Paris Local Division order on international jurisdiction; UPC jurisdiction under Art. 7(2) Brussels Ibis limited to UPC territory; non-UPC national parts of EP 2 949 070 (CH, ES, GB, IE, NO, PL) outside UPC jurisdiction absent sufficient Art. 71ter(3) pleading.