Ausgangs-Basisraten

Keine Sachentscheidungen im aktuellen Umfang.

• Berufungen213
• Sonstige1

• Court of Appeal214 fällePI-Erteilungsquote: —Verletzungsquote: —Nichtigerklärungsquote: —

• 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.
• 2026-02-27UPC_CoA_884/2025Court of AppealNur prozessualThe Court of Appeal (judge-rapporteur Rian Kalden, Panel 2) rejected Sibio Technology Limited's request for further exchanges of written pleadings (R. 36 RoP) in the appeal against the Paris Central Division's decision dismissing the revocation action concerning EP 3 831 283 and maintaining the patent as granted. Abbott's auxiliary requests, already submitted and admitted at first instance, are part of the appeal proceedings without requiring re-filing. The written procedure is closed and the oral phase opened.
• 2026-02-24UPC_CoA_883/2025Court of AppealAbgewiesenThe Court of Appeal dismissed Suinno's application for rehearing (R. 245 RoP) of two earlier CoA decisions (order on security for costs and decision on default judgment). The Court found no fundamental procedural defect under Art. 81(1)(b) UPCA. Suinno failed to demonstrate that any procedural error was so serious as to constitute a fundamental defect, and the Court held that the right to be heard does not require exhaustive written responses to each argument. The applications for rehearing were therefore dismissed.
• 2026-02-18UPC_CoA_19/2026Court of AppealNur prozessualThe Court of Appeal (Panel 2: Kalden, Rombach, Simonsson) rejected Guardant Health's application for suspensive effect regarding the Paris Local Division's interim award of costs of EUR 400,000 ordered against Guardant following the rejection of its application for provisional measures concerning EP 3 443 066 (one of four patents originally asserted). The court found no manifest error in the CFI's interim costs award and dismissed the application. Sophia's request to set a payment deadline was also considered.
• 2026-02-11UPC_CoA_4/2026Court of AppealNur prozessualCourt of Appeal ruled on the admissibility of Valeo's appeal against the CFI's order on a preliminary objection. The appeal was declared admissible under R.220.2 RoP. The CoA also rejected Bosch's alternative request for a stay of the first-instance proceedings pending the appeal, finding that no exceptional circumstances justified a stay. The admissibility ruling concerned the correct appeal route where the judge-rapporteur allowed a preliminary objection but did not terminate proceedings as to all defendants.
• 2026-02-11UPC_CoA_4/2026Court of AppealNur prozessualFrench-language signed version of the Court of Appeal admissibility ruling in Valeo v. Bosch. Identical in substance to the English version: Valeo's appeal against the CFI preliminary objection order declared admissible under R.220.2 RoP; Bosch's alternative request for a stay of first-instance proceedings rejected as no exceptional circumstances existed.
• 2026-02-09UPC_CoA_8/2026Court of AppealAbgewiesenGerman-language decision of the Court of Appeal (Standing Judge Simonsson) dismissing Papst Licensing's appeal against the Paris Central Division decision (UPC_CFI_1771/2025). The CoA confirmed that Art. 3(1) of Regulation 1257/2012 cannot be interpreted to allow registration of unitary effect for a patent that does not designate all participating member states (Malta was not designated). Papst's requests for preliminary rulings to the CJEU were rejected as unnecessary. Each party bears its own costs per Art. 66(2) UPCA.