| 2026-02-18 | UPC_CFI_819/2024 | Mannheim LD | Withdrawal (RoP265) | Rücknahme | Zurückgenommen | The Mannheim Local Division permitted Corning's partial withdrawal of its infringement action (EP 3 296 274) against defendants Hisense Gorenje Germany GmbH and Hisense Europe Holding GmbH (defendants 1 and 2) under R. 265 RoP. The infringement action continues against TCL and LG (defendants 3–6). Simultaneously, the counterclaim for revocation filed by defendants 1 and 2 was also withdrawn and declared closed. Corning bears the costs of the withdrawn infringement proceedings against defendants 1–2; defendants 1–2 receive a 40% reimbursement (EUR 8,000) of their counterclaim court fees. |
| 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. |
| 2026-02-17 | UPC_CFI_1963/2025 | Paris LD | Infringement Action | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | Paris Local Division rejected all of Bosch's preliminary objections to the jurisdiction and internal competence of the Paris Local Division in Valeo's infringement action. The court held that the condition in Art.33.1(b) UPCA ('action relates to the same infringement') requires violation of the same patent by all defendants but does not require identical infringing products. The Paris Local Division was found competent for all defendants. Costs deferred to merits decision. |
| 2026-02-17 | UPC_CoA_926/2025 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Nur prozessual | Order of the Court of Appeal (Panel 1a) on TP-Link's appeal against Munich Local Division orders restricting public access to the register under Rule 262.1(b) RoP. TP-Link (a third party to the main Huawei v. Netgear infringement proceedings) sought access to certain pleadings and annexes filed in those proceedings after redaction of personal data. This is the German-language version of the order (see also the English-language version filed as item 12). The court addressed the scope of public access rights to UPC register documents and conditions under which access may be restricted. |
| 2026-02-17 | UPC_CoA_926/2025 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Nur prozessual | English-language version of the Court of Appeal (Panel 1a) order on TP-Link's appeal against Munich Local Division orders restricting public access to the register under Rule 262.1(b) RoP. TP-Link sought access to certain pleadings and annexes submitted by Huawei and Netgear in the main infringement proceedings (UPC_CFI_168/2024 and UPC_CFI_152/2024) after redaction of personal data. The court addressed the scope of public access to UPC pleadings, the balancing of transparency against confidentiality interests, and the conditions under which third-party register access must be granted or may be restricted. |
| 2026-02-17 | UPC_CoA_302/2025 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | Verletzt | Court 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) |
| 2026-02-17 | UPC_CoA_302/2025 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | Verletzt | Court 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) |
| 2026-02-16 | UPC_CFI_716/2025 | Dusseldorf LD | Application Rop 265 | Prozessual | Vergleich | Decision permitting ETRI's withdrawal of the infringement action (EP 2 258 692 B1 / EP 3 258 692 B1) against Hisense Gorenje and others following a settlement. Each party bears its own costs. 60% of court fees (EUR 14,400) reimbursed to Claimant. Value in dispute set at EUR 2,500,000. |
| 2026-02-13 | UPC_CFI_770/2024 | Milan LD | Infringement Action | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | The Milan Local Division issued a post-interim-conference order in Pirelli v. Sichuan Yuanxing Rubber, resolving preliminary objections (with SYR withdrawing a service objection) and addressing admissibility of photographs and product samples from the earlier seizure. |
| 2026-02-12 | UPC_CFI_723/2025 | Dusseldorf LD | Application for provisional measures | Einstweilige Verfügung | PI erteilt | Düsseldorf Local Division granted provisional measures (preliminary injunction) against Angelalign defendants 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 for infringement of EP 4 346 690 B1 (dental aligner technology), with penalty payments of up to EUR 10,000 per infringing product or EUR 20,000 per day for continuing infringement, and provisional cost reimbursement of EUR 400,000. The application against defendant 3 (Angelalign Technology Inc., Cayman Islands holding company) was rejected as no actions beyond typical shareholder role were alleged. |
| 2026-02-12 | UPC_CFI_575/2025 | Mannheim LD | Preliminary objection | motionName.jurisdictional | Abgewiesen | The Mannheim Local Division rejected the preliminary objection filed by all seven defendants (led by Sovex Systems and Solvest entities) in Honeywell's infringement action concerning EP 2 563 695 B1. The Court retained jurisdiction over the Dutch defendants under Art. 33(1) UPCA and rejected the defendants' arguments challenging international jurisdiction over Hemtech (Bosnia and Herzegovina) under Art. 31 UPCA and Art. 71b Brussels I Recast. The Court found Honeywell had sufficiently asserted German-directed infringing acts at the pleadings stage, without needing to pre-judge the merits. Leave to appeal the rejection was not granted by the judge-rapporteur. |
| 2026-02-11 | UPC_CFI_274/2023 | Hamburg LD | Determination of damages and compensation | motionName.damages | Abgewiesen | Hamburg Local Division dismissed Fives ECL's claim for damages (lost profits) against REEL GmbH in determination of damages proceedings. The Court found that Fives ECL had not sufficiently demonstrated that the profit loss was causally linked to the patent infringement, given that the infringer could have submitted an alternative non-infringing offer. National German law applied as the relevant facts occurred before 1 June 2023. |
| 2026-02-11 | UPC_CoA_4/2026 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Nur prozessual | Court 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. |
| 2026-02-11 | UPC_CoA_4/2026 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Nur prozessual | French-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. |
| 2026-02-11 | UPC_CFI_1648/2025 | Dusseldorf LD | Application Rop 265 | Prozessual | Vergleich | The Düsseldorf Local Division accepted the withdrawal of Avago Technologies' infringement action against Telefónica Germany concerning EP 1 954 091, noting the parties had reached an out-of-court agreement rendering a cost decision unnecessary. |
| 2026-02-11 | UPC_CFI_351/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Infringement Action | Verletzung (Hauptsache) | Verletzt | The Düsseldorf Local Division found Canon's developer supply container patent EP 3 686 683 infringed by Katun and General Plastic entities, granting an injunction and ordering defendants to publish the operative part of the decision on their websites; the counterclaim for revocation was dismissed. |
| 2026-02-11 | UPC_CFI_336/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Application Rop 265 | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | The Düsseldorf Local Division issued a decision under R. 265 RoP on the withdrawal or termination of proceedings in case UPC_CFI_336/2024. |
| 2026-02-10 | UPC_CFI_1738/2025 | Milan LD | Application For Costs | Kosten | Nur Kosten | The Milan Local Division ruled on an application for a cost decision following the first-instance decision in UPC_CFI_178/2024 and 432/2024. The court held the application was not rendered premature by Progress's pending appeal, as cost proceedings are independent from appeal proceedings. |
| 2026-02-09 | UPC_CoA_8/2026 | Court of Appeal | Action against the decision of the EPO (RoP97) | motionName.appeal_epo | Abgewiesen | German-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. |
| 2026-02-09 | UPC_CoA_8/2026 | Court of Appeal | Action against the decision of the EPO (RoP97) | motionName.appeal_epo | Abgewiesen | English-language decision of the Court of Appeal (Standing Judge Simonsson) dismissing Papst Licensing's appeal against the CFI decision (UPC_CFI_1771/2025) refusing to annul the EPO's rejection of Papst's application for unitary effect of EP 3 327 608. The headnote confirms that Art. 3(1) of Regulation 1257/2012 cannot be interpreted to allow unitary effect registration for a patent not designating all participating member states. CJEU reference refused. Each party bears its own costs. |
| 2026-02-05 | UPC_CFI_666/2024 | The Hague LD | Application Rop 265 | Prozessual | Vergleich | The Hague Local Division declared the proceedings closed in both the infringement claim (Adeia v. Walt Disney) and the counterclaim for revocation, following the parties' mutual withdrawal of their actions under R.265.1 RoP after reaching a settlement. The court reimbursed 40% of the court fees paid, corresponding to the stage of proceedings at time of withdrawal (after interim procedure but before oral procedure). The settlement terms were not disclosed. |
| 2026-02-04 | UPC_CoA_891/2025 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | Nur prozessual | The Court of Appeal ruled on the admissibility of Centripetal's amended requests in its appeal concerning an application for preserving evidence and inspecting premises at Palo Alto's Mannheim offices. The order addresses whether amended requests submitted on appeal are admissible and how the preservation/inspection procedure should proceed. The Court ordered the evidence preservation and inspection subject to specified conditions. Judges: Klaus Grabinski (President), Peter Blok (judge-rapporteur), Emanuela Germano, Eric Augarde, Torsten Duhme. |
| 2026-02-04 | UPC_CFI_530/2025 | Paris LD | Infringement Action | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | Paris Local Division rejected Adobe's application for a default decision against KEEEX under R.158.5 and R.355.1 RoP. The court held that KEEEX had complied with the order to provide a bank guarantee (required following an earlier procedural order of 19 December 2025) and that Adobe's formal objections to the guarantee were unsubstantiated. The lack of diligence required to justify a default decision was not established. |
| 2026-02-03 | UPC_CoA_8/2025 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | Prozessual | Vergleich | Following the conclusion of appeal proceedings and a settlement agreement between Oerlikon Textile GmbH & Co KG and Bhagat Textile Engineers on payment of procedural costs (arising from the infringement judgment UPC_CFI_241/2023 and the appeal UPC_CoA_8/2025 decision of 9 December 2025), the Court of Appeal ordered the release and transfer to Oerlikon of the EUR 19,000 security deposit provided by Bhagat pursuant to the security for costs order of 30 October 2025. Bhagat consented to the transfer. |
| 2026-02-03 | UPC_CoA_8/2025 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | Prozessual | Vergleich | Italian-language version of the Court of Appeal order (Emmanuel Gougé) ordering the release and transfer to Oerlikon of EUR 19,000 security deposit provided by Bhagat, following settlement of cost payment obligations in the infringement and appeal proceedings concerning EP 2 145 848. Identical substance to the English version. |
| 2026-02-02 | UPC_CFI_657/2025 | Dusseldorf LD | Generic Order | Kosten | Nur Kosten | The Düsseldorf Local Division issued a cost decision following the merits judgment of 16 June 2025 (10x Genomics v. Curio Bioscience), apportioning costs of PI proceedings and main action proceedings at a 30%/70% ratio (claimant/defendant) based on the parties' respective success. |
| 2026-02-02 | UPC_CFI_658/2025 | Dusseldorf LD | Generic Order | Kosten | Nur Kosten | The Düsseldorf Local Division issued a costs decision in the 10x Genomics v Curio Bioscience proceedings (EP 2 697 391), establishing that costs of PI proceedings and main proceedings are capped separately, that mixing of costs between proceedings is inadmissible, and that in partial success the ceiling is reduced proportionally. |
| 2026-02-02 | UPC_CFI_515/2025 | Dusseldorf LD | Generic Order | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | The Düsseldorf Local Division issued a further procedural order under R. 275.2 RoP in HP's logic circuitry patent provisional measures proceedings, addressing service-related steps following the December 2025 preliminary injunction order. |
| 2026-02-02 | UPC_CFI_449/2025 | Dusseldorf LD | Generic Order | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | The Düsseldorf Local Division issued a further order of good service under R. 275.2 RoP for HP's printer patent PI proceedings against Zhuhai ouguan, after additional enquiries to China's central authority produced no further response, deeming service sufficient. |
| 2026-01-30 | UPC_CFI_365/2023 | Mannheim LD | Infringement Action | Verletzung (Hauptsache) | outcomeName.other | The Mannheim Local Division confirmed the earlier imposition of penalties order of 20 January 2026 against Kodak GmbH and related entities for non-compliance with a final judgment requiring provision of financial and technical information to FUJIFILM Corporation (EP 3 511 174). The Court rejected Kodak's challenge and upheld the maximum daily penalty as justified given the extent and seriousness of the non-compliance. Leave to appeal was granted to develop UPC case law on enforcement measures. |
| 2026-01-29 | UPC_CoA_931/2025 | Court of Appeal | Request for a discretionary review (RoP 220.3) | motionName.appeal_decision | Zurückgenommen | Court of Appeal declared the proceedings on Alpinestars' request for discretionary review closed after Alpinestars withdrew the request. Alpinestars was entitled to a 60% reimbursement of the court fees paid, as the withdrawal occurred within the written procedure phase. The underlying case involves a patent infringement and counterclaim for revocation before the Milan Local Division (Dainese v. Alpinestars). |
| 2026-01-29 | UPC_CoA_930/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application RoP262-2 | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | The 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). |
| 2026-01-28 | UPC_CFI_727/2024 | Milan LD | Infringement Action | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | The Milan Local Division issued a post-interim-conference order in Agathon AG v. Intercom s.r.l. and KNARR Vertriebs GmbH, setting out rulings on admissibility of technical drawings filed by the claimant and the handling of conditional auxiliary requests per R. 30.1 RoP. |
| 2026-01-28 | UPC_CFI_315/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Infringement Action | Verletzung (Hauptsache) | Nicht verletzt | The Düsseldorf Local Division dismissed Labrador Diagnostics' infringement action concerning EP 3 756 767 against bioMérieux entities, finding no infringement after the Central Division amended the patent claims; the court was bound by the amended claim wording and validity was no longer decisive. |
| 2026-01-26 | N/A | Court of Appeal | Petition for review of Registrar's decision | — | Abgewiesen | The President of the Court of Appeal dismissed an anonymous applicant's petition for review of the Registrar's decision rejecting his application to be entered on the list of UPC representatives. The Registrar had rejected the application because it was filed outside the one-year transition period from the entry into force of the UPCA on 1 June 2023, as required by R. 12.1 EPLC Rules. The President held that the one-year time period is not discriminatory and that the applicant's 'Kandidatenkurs Fischbachau' certificate qualified under R. 12.1(a) but was submitted outside the permitted timeframe. |
| 2026-01-26 | UPC_CFI_2045/2025 | Mannheim LD | Infringement Action | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | Order of the President of the Court of First Instance granting Amazon's application under R.323 RoP to change the language of proceedings from German to English (the language in which the patent was granted). The court found that none of the defendants is based in Germany, that they all require English for internal coordination, and that the circumstances of the case and fairness under Art.49(5) UPCA justified the change. |
| 2026-01-26 | UPC_CoA_917/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application RoP262-2 | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | The 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. |
| 2026-01-26 | UPC_CFI_1064/2025 | Munich LD | Infringement Action | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | Order of the President of the Court of First Instance granting Nordmeccanica's application under R.323 RoP to change the language of proceedings from German to English. The court held that when the balance of interests is equal, the defendant's position is decisive, and that Nordmeccanica (an Italian company) would be disadvantaged by proceedings in German. The language was changed to English. |
| 2026-01-26 | UPC_CFI_999/2025 | Paris CD | Revocation Action | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | Order from the Paris Central Division (Panel 3) dated 26 January 2026 reviewing (under R. 333 RoP) the judge-rapporteur's earlier order on a preliminary objection (R. 19 RoP) in a revocation action brought by ALD France S.A.S. against Nanoval GmbH & Co. KG regarding EP 3 083 107 B1. The panel upheld the judge-rapporteur's ruling that ALD France S.A.S. has a sufficient independent interest to bring the revocation action notwithstanding that ALD Vacuum Technologies GmbH (an affiliated entity) had already filed a counterclaim for revocation in parallel infringement proceedings. The panel held: (1) ALD France and ALD Vacuum are not 'the same party' under Art. 33(4) UPCA merely because they are parent/subsidiary; (2) independent business activity is the relevant criterion; (3) competition law principles on economic units do not transfer. |
| 2026-01-26 | UPC_CoA_791/2025 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Nur prozessual | Court of Appeal order on confidentiality protection (Rule 262A RoP) in Sun Patent Trust v. Vivo appeal proceedings. The court set principles for access to confidential information by employees of parties, holding that employee status alone is not sufficient to deny access, and that parties should generally be able to propose at least one employee for access to ensure effective representation. |
| 2026-01-26 | UPC_CoA_631/2025 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Nur prozessual | The Court of Appeal issued a final order on the protection of confidential information (R. 262A RoP) in the Ericsson v. ASUS infringement proceedings. The Court established a confidentiality club granting access to: court representatives and their assistants, Ericsson's licensing expert Robert Mills (Berkeley Research Group), ASUS's licensing expert Philip Kline (EconEdge), and one natural person from each party. Persons with access to confidential licence agreement information may not participate in or advise upon patent licensing negotiations with the relevant counterparties for five years. |
| 2026-01-26 | UPC_CoA_631/2025 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Nur prozessual | The Court of Appeal (Panel 1a) partially granted Ericsson's application for rectification (R. 353 RoP) of the Court of Appeal's order of 26 January 2026 on confidentiality club access under R. 262A RoP in the Ericsson v ASUS infringement proceedings concerning EP 2 727 342 and EP 3 076 673. Paragraph VI of the operative part was rectified to apply only to ASUS's designated employee (not Ericsson's), correcting an obvious slip. ASUS's auxiliary request was rejected. |
| 2026-01-23 | UPC_CFI_1325/2025 | Dusseldorf LD | Application for an Order for inspection pursuant to RoP199 | Beweis | Nur prozessual | The Düsseldorf Local Division issued a further order in the Van Loon v. Inverquark evidence preservation proceedings, addressing the release of the expert's detailed description and a request for a supplementary expert opinion following the Aquanale Köln inspection. |
| 2026-01-23 | UPC_CFI_808/2025 | Paris LD | Application for provisional measures | Einstweilige Verfügung | PI abgelehnt | The Paris Local Division rejected Guardant Health's application for provisional measures under three patents (EP 3 591 073, EP 3 443 066, EP 3 766 986) against Sophia Genetics. The court found issues of added matter in the divisional patent and insufficient evidence to demonstrate infringement with the required degree of certainty. Guardant Health's request regarding a fourth patent (EP 3 470 533) was withdrawn during proceedings. Guardant Health ordered to pay Sophia Genetics EUR 400,000 as interim costs. |
| 2026-01-21 | UPC_CoA_4/2026 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Nur prozessual | Court of Appeal procedural order in the Valeo v. Bosch appeal concerning jurisdiction and language of proceedings. Paris Central Division had granted Bosch's preliminary objection, ordering transfer to Düsseldorf Local Division with English as language. Valeo appealed under R. 220.2 RoP requesting the Court of Appeal rule Paris Central Division has jurisdiction and French is the language. |
| 2026-01-20 | UPC_CFI_1506/2025 | Munich LD | Infringement Action | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | Order of the President of the Court of First Instance granting Pinterest's application under R.323 RoP to change the language of proceedings from German to English. The court held that although Pinterest Germany is based in Germany, the working language of the entire Pinterest group is English, and the need for coordinated internal communication outweighed the claimant's interest in German proceedings. |
| 2026-01-19 | UPC_CFI_481/2025 | Mannheim LD | Application RoP262A | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | The Mannheim Local Division issued a general confidentiality order under R. 262A RoP in Huawei v. HMD Global, establishing a standing regime protecting all details of FRAND negotiations between the parties disclosed in any future submissions, with parties retaining the right to request stricter protection for highly sensitive information. |
| 2026-01-16 | UPC_CoA_935/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 223 | Prozessual | Abgewiesen | Court of Appeal dismissed the anonymised applicant's application for suspensive effect of its appeal against a default decision from The Hague Local Division (which had granted provisional measures and subsequently a default judgment in favour of Amycel). The CoA held that the applicant failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances, that the impugned decision was manifestly erroneous, or that the appeal would become devoid of purpose without suspensive effect. |
| 2026-01-16 | UPC_CFI_1048/2025 | The Hague LD | Infringement Action | Verletzung (Hauptsache) | Vergleich | The Hague Local Division allowed BTL Medizintechnik GmbH's withdrawal of its infringement action against Lexter Microelectronic Engineering Systems S.L. following a settlement. The proceedings were declared closed with no cost decision required. |