Ausgangs-Basisraten

Keine Sachentscheidungen im aktuellen Umfang.

• Berufungen206
• Sonstige1

• Court of Appeal207 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.
• 2026-02-18UPC_CoA_744/2025Court of AppealZurückgenommenThe Court of Appeal permitted Samsung Bioepis NL B.V.'s withdrawal of two applications for leave to appeal cost decisions (UPC_CoA_744/2025 and UPC_CoA_750/2025) in proceedings relating to provisional measures dismissed for lack of urgency before the Hamburg Local Division. Alexion consented to the withdrawal and waived any costs claim. The proceedings were declared closed with no costs order.
• 2026-01-29UPC_CoA_930/2025Court of AppealNur prozessualThe Court of Appeal ruled on EOFlow's confidentiality request (R.262.2 RoP) concerning information communicated pursuant to a Court order under Art. 67 UPCA and R.191 RoP (relating to EOFlow's business agreements with Menarini). The Court held that there is no implicit limitation on the use of information received under a court order to communicate information; a confidentiality request must be expressly filed. R.262A RoP applies at least mutatis mutandis. This appeal arises from the Milan Central Division's order of 4 December 2025 (UPC_CFI_1167/2025) imposing penalty payments of EUR 150,000 against EOFlow for non-compliance with the provisional measures order of 30 April 2025 (UPC_CoA_768/2024).
• 2026-01-26UPC_CoA_917/2025Court of AppealNur prozessualThe Court of Appeal issued an order on Merz Pharmaceuticals' request under R. 262.2 RoP to keep certain information (including Exhibit 823) confidential in the Merz v. Viatris Santé proceedings. The Court reiterated that R. 262.2 RoP requests are addressed to future public access requests, not to the other party. Protection against the other party's use of confidential information requires a R. 262A RoP confidentiality order. The Court declined to issue a decision on the R. 262.2 request at this stage pending any public access application.