Ausgangs-Basisraten

Keine Sachentscheidungen im aktuellen Umfang.

• Prozessuale & Unteranträge32

• Brussels LD10 fällePI-Erteilungsquote: —Verletzungsquote: —Nichtigerklärungsquote: —
• Helsinki LD7 fällePI-Erteilungsquote: —Verletzungsquote: —Nichtigerklärungsquote: —
• The Hague LD4 fällePI-Erteilungsquote: —Verletzungsquote: —Nichtigerklärungsquote: —
• Hamburg LD4 fällePI-Erteilungsquote: —Verletzungsquote: —Nichtigerklärungsquote: —
• Milan LD2 fällePI-Erteilungsquote: —Verletzungsquote: —Nichtigerklärungsquote: —
• Lisbon LD2 fällePI-Erteilungsquote: —Verletzungsquote: —Nichtigerklärungsquote: —
• Munich LD1 fällePI-Erteilungsquote: —Verletzungsquote: —Nichtigerklärungsquote: —
• Paris LD1 fällePI-Erteilungsquote: —Verletzungsquote: —Nichtigerklärungsquote: —
• Mannheim LD1 fällePI-Erteilungsquote: —Verletzungsquote: —Nichtigerklärungsquote: —

• 2026-01-05UPC_CFI_730/2025Hamburg LDNur KostenHamburg Local Division cost assessment decision in the Nera Innovations v. Xiaomi proceedings. The Court determined the reimbursable costs for appeal proceedings under R. 220.2 RoP, holding that: (1) two authorised representatives are generally permissible but not necessary in R. 220.2 appeal on specific procedural issue; (2) the ceiling for reimbursable costs for main proceedings does not apply to R. 220.2 appeals on sub-issues; (3) travel expenses for at least one natural person are always reimbursable; and (4) even a successful party must generally bear its own costs in cost assessment proceedings.
• 2026-01-05UPC_CFI_730/2025Hamburg LDNur KostenDuplicate of the Hamburg Local Division cost assessment decision (5 January 2026) in the Nera Innovations v. Xiaomi proceedings (UPC_CFI_730/2025), determining reimbursable costs for R. 220.2 RoP appeal proceedings on service of statement of claim.
• 2025-12-22UPC_CFI_407/2025Dusseldorf LDZurückgenommenThe Düsseldorf Local Division accepted the mutual withdrawal of Atlas Global Technologies' infringement action and Vantiva's counterclaim for revocation concerning EP 3 353 901, with the parties waiving a cost decision.
• 2025-12-05UPC_CFI_342/2025Milan LDNur prozessualThe Milan Local Division dismissed the defendants' challenge to a previously granted evidence preservation order in the 3V Sigma v. AGA/ACEF chemical patent case, holding that the claimant had fulfilled its duty of disclosure and that sufficient prima facie evidence of infringement was presented to justify the order.
• 2025-11-12UPC_CFI_407/2025Brussels LDNur prozessualReview order by the Brussels Local Division following an ex parte order for preservation of evidence/inspection pursuant to Rule 197.3 RoP in Genentech/Roche v Organon proceedings. The court confirmed the inspection orders with modifications, set a deadline for expert reports, and set a 31-day (or 20 working day) term for initiating infringement proceedings after receipt of the experts' report.
• 2025-09-23UPC_CFI_342/2025Milan LDNur prozessualThe Milan Local Division issued an order on the confidentiality of documents seized during evidence preservation proceedings, setting a temporary confidentiality regime and inviting the parties to submit observations on 3V Sigma's access to the unredacted confidential documentation.
• 2025-09-17UPC_APP_36985/2025Paris LDNur prozessualParis Local Division order (judge-rapporteur Lignières, full panel) in provisional measures proceedings by Merz Therapeutics GmbH and related Merz entities against Viatris Santé concerning EP 2 377 536 (botulinum toxin / SPC FR13C0033). The order addresses Merz's procedural application (R. 9 RoP) to limit or restructure Viatris' 473-page objection, or alternatively to set a page limit for subsequent submissions. No substantive ruling on the provisional measures application.
• 2025-09-11UPC_APP_36707/2025The Hague LDPI erteiltThe Hague Local Division granted Washtower's application for provisional measures against defendants 2–5 (IBBH, BEGA Consult, BEGA BBK and NEG Novex), handing down injunctions against the making, offering and marketing of Laundreezy and Respekta Clara washing machine cabinets that infringe EP 3 522 755 B1, together with information and recall orders and an interim costs award of €56,000; the application against defendant 1 (Wasombouw) was withdrawn after settlement.