| 2026-03-25 | UPC_CoA_528/2024 | Court of Appeal | Withdrawal (RoP265) | Rücknahme | Zurückgenommen | Sanofi 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. |
| 2026-03-24 | UPC_CoA_44/2026 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 223 | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | Order 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. |
| 2026-03-13 | UPC_CoA_922/2025 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Abgewiesen | Order 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. |
| 2026-03-13 | UPC_CoA_922/2025 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Abgewiesen | French 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. |
| 2026-03-11 | UPC_CoA_934/2025 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | Vergleich | Court of Appeal accepted the withdrawal of the application for provisional measures following an out-of-court settlement between the parties. The Düsseldorf Local Division had previously granted provisional measures to Roche against Menarini entities. Following settlement, the proceedings were declared terminated. Each party bears its own costs. |
| 2026-03-06 | UPC_CoA_895/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 265 | Prozessual | Vergleich | The Court of Appeal permitted Black Sheep Retail Products B.V.'s withdrawal of its appeal (UPC_CoA_895/2025 and UPC_CoA_896/2025) against the Local Division The Hague's decision of 10 October 2025 finding Black Sheep had infringed EP 2 432 351 and granting an injunction and corrective measures. The withdrawal was filed following settlement discussions, with HL Display's consent. The Court also granted Black Sheep's application for reimbursement of 60% of court fees under R. 370.9(b)(i) RoP. |
| 2026-02-18 | UPC_CoA_890/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application For Costs | Kosten | Nur prozessual | The Court of Appeal set aside the Munich Local Division's orders requiring Syntorr LP to provide security for costs in infringement proceedings against Arthrex regarding EP 2 670 898. Identical reasoning to UPC_CoA_889/2025: ATE insurance with anti-avoidance endorsement sufficient; security for costs dismissed; bank guarantee ordered released. |
| 2026-02-18 | UPC_CoA_889/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application For Costs | Kosten | Nur prozessual | The Court of Appeal set aside the Munich Local Division's orders requiring Syntorr LP to provide security for costs (EUR 2,000,000) in infringement proceedings against Arthrex. The court found that the existence of an after-the-event (ATE) litigation insurance policy with an anti-avoidance endorsement adequately addressed concerns about enforceability of a costs order, and therefore security for costs should not have been ordered. The bank guarantee provided by Syntorr was ordered to be released. |
| 2026-02-18 | UPC_CoA_528/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | Einstweilige Verfügung | Abgewiesen | The Court of Appeal (Panel with Klaus Grabinski, Nathalie Sabotier, Peter Blok) rejected Sanofi and Regeneron's application for suspensive effect concerning the Court of Appeal's own decision of 25 November 2025 which had rejected the requests for revocation of EP 3 666 797. Sanofi and Regeneron sought suspensive effect as part of a petition for rehearing (R. 220.4 RoP). The court found no basis to suspend a revocation-rejection decision (as this had no practical effect on the patent's validity status), and rejected the claim that the CoA's reasoning on claim interpretation and inventive step was based on issues not argued by the parties. |
| 2026-02-17 | UPC_CoA_937/2025 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | Nur prozessual | The Court of Appeal (judge-rapporteur Bart van den Broek) rejected the bioMérieux companies' request to stay the UPC revocation appeal proceedings pending EPO opposition proceedings concerning EP 3 756 767. The court found no exceptional circumstances justifying a stay, holding that UPC and EPO decisions on patent validity are not irreconcilable and that EPO developments can be factored into the appeal later. The court also rejected the request for extension of the deadline for the Statement of Grounds of Appeal, finding more efficient means (such as hearing appeals together under R. 220.5 RoP) available. |
| 2025-12-19 | UPC_CoA_903/2025 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | Nur prozessual | A very short order signed by judges Nathalie Sabotier, Rian Kalden, and Ingeborg Simonsson on 19 December 2025, in the case UERAN Technology LLC v. Xiaomi group entities (partial overlap with UPC_CoA_902/2025). The text of the decision body is not captured in the excerpt; only the signatures are visible. This appears to be a procedural order in an appeal. |
| 2025-12-19 | UPC_CoA_902/2025 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | Nur prozessual | A very short order signed by judges Nathalie Sabotier, Rian Kalden, and Ingeborg Simonsson on 19 December 2025, in the case UERAN Technology LLC v. Xiaomi group entities. The text of the decision body is not captured in the excerpt; only the signatures are visible. This appears to be a procedural order in an appeal. |
| 2025-12-01 | UPC_CoA_838/2025 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | Abgewiesen | The Court of Appeal dismissed Innovative Sonic's appeal against the refusal to change the language of proceedings back to German in the Munich Local Division infringement action against OPPO et al. The court held that the language of the parties (different from German) and the language qualifications of representatives were not sufficiently weighty to justify a second language change, and that English was already in use. |
| 2025-11-25 | UPC_CoA_529/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | Nichtig erklärt | The Court of Appeal decided appeals in a revocation action and a counterclaim for revocation concerning PCSK9 antibody patents. Based on the reasoning visible in the excerpt, the Court found that the patent lacked inventive step because the skilled person at the priority date could not reasonably predict whether an antibody targeting secreted PCSK9 would result in a therapeutically effective treatment for hypercholesterolaemia; the prior art (Lagace, Horton, Cunningham) contained only conditional suggestions. The appeals concerned claim interpretation, added matter, sufficiency, and inventive step in the context of medical use-format claims. The operative decision is not fully visible in the excerpt but the substantive reasoning strongly indicates revocation. |
| 2025-11-06 | UPC_CoA_897/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 223 | Prozessual | Abgewiesen | The Court of Appeal dismissed Black Sheep Retail Products' application for suspensive effect of an appeal against the Hague Local Division's infringement decision (10 October 2025), which found EP 2 432 351 valid and infringed and ordered BSRP to disclose information to HL Display. The Court held that suspensive effect is the exception, not the rule, and that enforcement of information orders may only be suspended in exceptional circumstances. No such exceptional circumstances (manifest error, or appeal becoming devoid of purpose) were shown. BSRP failed to establish that providing the information would cause irreparable harm. |