Ausgangs-Basisraten

Keine Sachentscheidungen im aktuellen Umfang.

• Berufungen43

• Court of Appeal43 fällePI-Erteilungsquote: —Verletzungsquote: —Nichtigerklärungsquote: —

• 2026-02-17UPC_CoA_302/2025Court of AppealVerletztCourt of Appeal reversed the first instance decision, which had revoked the patent. The Court of Appeal upheld the patent's validity (rejecting the counterclaim for revocation), found patent infringement, and issued orders including a permanent injunction, recall, and destruction of infringing products. Provisional lump-sum damages of EUR 20,000 were awarded, with full damages to be determined in subsequent proceedings. (German-language version)
• 2026-02-17UPC_CoA_302/2025Court of AppealVerletztCourt of Appeal reversed the first instance decision, which had revoked the patent. The Court of Appeal upheld the patent's validity (rejecting the counterclaim for revocation), found patent infringement, and issued orders including a permanent injunction, recall, and destruction of infringing products. Provisional lump-sum damages of EUR 20,000 were awarded, with full damages to be determined in subsequent proceedings. (English-language version)
• 2025-11-25UPC_CoA_464/2024Court of AppealPatent aufrechterhaltenThe Court of Appeal dismissed the Meril companies' appeals against the revocation and counterclaim revocation decisions and Edwards' appeal against the infringement decision, upholding the patent EP 3 646 825 (heart valve). Key rulings: (I–VIII) All revocation and counterclaim appeals rejected; Meril bears 60% of Edwards' costs in the revocation proceedings and Edwards bears 40% of Meril's costs. (IX–X) The infringement decision was partially set aside: the injunction and preliminary damages order do not extend to XL devices (30.5mm and 32mm) that had not been scheduled for implantation in a patient by 15 November 2024. Preliminary damages reduced to not exceed €363,000 for Meril India and Meril Germany. The value of the proceedings is €8,000,000.
• 2025-11-07UPC_CoA_900/2025Court of AppealAbgewiesenCourt of Appeal (judge-rapporteur) rejected Lepu Medical's application for suspensive effect of its appeal against a preliminary injunction granted by the Hamburg Local Division in favour of Occlutech. The CoA held that Lepu failed to demonstrate that the impugned order contained manifest errors or that the appeal would become devoid of purpose without suspensive effect. Lepu's claim that enforcing the injunction would damage its reputation was insufficient to outweigh Occlutech's interest in preventing imminent patent infringement.
• 2025-11-05UPC_CoA_762/2024Court of AppealNichtig erklärtCourt of Appeal decision (English) – duplicate/related filing to UPC_CoA_773/2024. Same substantive outcome: Seoul Viosys's LED patent claims 1, 4, 5, 6, and 9 revoked for added matter; all infringement claims dismissed; Viosys ordered to bear costs of both instances.
• 2025-11-05UPC_CoA_762/2024Court of AppealNichtig erklärtGerman-language version of the Court of Appeal decision (UPC_CoA_762/2024 and 773/2024) in Seoul Viosys v expert. Claims 1, 4, 5, 6 and 9 of the LED patent revoked for added matter. All infringement claims dismissed. Viosys ordered to bear all costs for both instances.
• 2025-11-05UPC_CoA_773/2024Court of AppealNichtig erklärtCourt of Appeal decision (English) on the appeal in the counterclaim for revocation and the related infringement action concerning Seoul Viosys's EP (LED patent, EP 698). The CoA found added matter in claim 1 of the patent (content extended beyond the earlier application as filed, particularly regarding embodiments with a single mesa). Claims 1, 4, 5, 6 and 9 revoked. Infringement action dismissed. Viosys ordered to pay expert's costs for both appeal and first instance proceedings. Key headnotes: court may raise added matter of its own motion; translation of international application governs content; patentee must demonstrate inaccuracy of its own translation.
• 2025-10-14UPC_CoA_699/2025Court of AppealoutcomeName.otherThe Court of Appeal partly set aside a first-instance order on penalty payments in Fujifilm v Kodak. The court clarified the UPC penalty system under Rule 354.3 RoP, holding that a penalty order can be issued separately after the main decision. The court replaced the first-instance penalty orders with new orders: EUR 2,500/day from 23 July 2025 to 4 August 2025 and EUR 10,000/day thereafter for continued non-compliance by Kodak with orders on information, destruction, recall and removal from channels of commerce.