| 2025-12-19 | UPC_APP_35643/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application RoP262.1 (b) | Prozessual | Abgewiesen | The Court of Appeal dismissed Docket Navigator's application for access to written pleadings and evidence in the Sumi Agro v. Syngenta proceedings (UPC_CoA_523/2024) under R. 262.1(b) RoP. The Court held that granting access to a commercial patent intelligence platform intending to republish documents to its subscribers is not an interest protected under Art. 45 UPCA. Copyright is not a general interest to be considered under Art. 45 UPCA. The requirement of representation and the proper conduct of proceedings would be compromised by granting access for commercial redistribution purposes. |
| 2025-08-21 | UPC_APP_34793/2025 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | The Court of Appeal disregarded applications filed by Seoul Viosys after the oral hearing had closed, ruling that parties must refrain from further communications with the court after an oral hearing and there is no need to summarise oral argument in writing. |
| 2025-08-21 | UPC_APP_35194/2025 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | Court of Appeal order denying Yealink's request for simultaneous interpretation at the oral hearing in provisional measures proceedings. The Court held that a party must justify the need for court-ordered simultaneous interpretation; the fact that the defendant is based in a non-English speaking country or that company officials will have difficulties following proceedings does not generally justify such an order. The same applies to interpretation at the parties' own cost. A party may instead engage a private interpreter at its own expense with two weeks' notice to the Registry (R. 109.4 RoP). |
| 2025-08-15 | UPC_APP_34722/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 223 | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | The Court of Appeal denied Sun Patent Trust's application for suspensive effect of a confidentiality order, holding that an application for suspensive effect cannot be made before lodging a Statement of Appeal; the standing judge dismissed the application as inadmissible. |
| 2025-08-15 | UPC_APP_34719/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 223 | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | The UPC Court of Appeal dismissed Sun Patent Trust's application for suspensive effect of two appeals concerning confidentiality orders in infringement proceedings against Vivo entities (EP3407524 and EP3852468), because a statement of appeal had not yet been lodged as required by R.223.1 and R.224.1 RoP. |
| 2025-08-15 | UPC_APP_34336/2025 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | Kosten | Vergleich | The Court of Appeal granted the release and transfer of a security deposit of EUR 25,000 (provided by Ballinno for Kinexon's legal costs in the appeal proceedings) following a settlement agreement between the parties. The appeal had been adjudicated on 26 June 2025 and thereafter the parties entered into a settlement. The security was ordered to be transferred to Kinexon Sports GmbH. |
| 2025-08-01 | UPC_APP_25317/2025 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | Court of Appeal (Second Panel) ruled on Strabag's and Chainzone's applications for confidentiality orders under R. 262A RoP in their appeal of the Swarco v. Strabag infringement decision from Vienna Local Division. The Court partly granted and partly rejected the applications, confirming that product characteristics not readily accessible to third parties constitute trade secrets, but rejected applications for information already submitted at first instance without a timely R. 262A request. |
| 2025-07-23 | UPC_APP_32598/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 265 | Prozessual | Vergleich | Court of Appeal (Panel 2) permitted Visibly Inc.'s withdrawal of its appeal against a Hamburg Local Division security-for-costs order in infringement proceedings concerning EP 3 918 974, following an out-of-court settlement between the parties. Easee companies had become insolvent and their CFI proceedings had been stayed. The Court of Appeal declared the appeal proceedings closed, confirmed no cost decision was needed (both parties waived costs), and ordered 60% reimbursement of appeal fees to Visibly (written proceedings not yet concluded). |
| 2025-07-01 | ORD_31755/2025 | Court of Appeal | Generic Order | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | Order from the Court of Appeal (UPC_CoA_542/2025 and UPC_CoA_526/2025) staying appeal proceedings concerning security for costs in full, following the insolvency of the Easee companies. Both Easee and Visibly had cross-appealed the Hamburg Local Division's order requiring EUR 75,000 security for the revocation action. The Court of Appeal stayed both appeals pursuant to R. 295m RoP due to insolvency proceedings regarding the Easee companies. |
| 2025-06-26 | UPC_APP_28639/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 223 | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | The Court of Appeal (Panel 2: Kalden, Rombach, Simonsson) granted suspensive effect to the managing director's appeal and provisionally granted suspensive effect to the Easee companies' appeal pending clarification of their representation authority (following insolvency), against the Hamburg Local Division's order requiring Easee to provide security for legal costs of EUR 75,000 for the revocation counterclaim proceedings. The court found the managing director's arguments on the impermissibility of security for costs for defendants in revocation proceedings raised an obvious legal error. |
| 2025-06-19 | UPC_APP_8340/2025 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | motionName.appeal_decision | Abgewiesen | Court of Appeal Panel 2 rejected Alexion Pharmaceuticals' application for rehearing (R. 245 RoP) of the earlier Court of Appeal order dismissing Alexion's appeal against the Hamburg Local Division's denial of provisional measures. Alexion had alleged fundamental procedural defects (new claim interpretation standard applied without being heard, and incorrect facts). The Court held that no fundamental procedural defect within the meaning of Art. 81(1)(b) UPCA / R. 247(c) RoP was established. Alexion ordered to bear Samsung's costs of the rehearing proceedings. |
| 2025-06-17 | UPC_APP_27069/2025 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | The Court of Appeal declared inadmissible Knaus Tabbert AG's 'Gegenvorstellung' (objection to the rejection of its stay application under R. 223 RoP), holding that a mere challenge to the reasoning of the appellate order denying a suspensive effect does not constitute an admissible procedural remedy, and that new facts about third parties' financial situation that could have been raised at first instance are not admissible. |
| 2025-06-17 | UPC_APP_27069/2025 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | Prozessual | Abgewiesen | The Court of Appeal (Panel 2) declared inadmissible Knaus Tabbert AG's 'Gegenvorstellung' (objection) filed against the Court of Appeal's earlier rejection of Knaus Tabbert's application for suspensive effect (R.223 RoP). The Court held that an objection which merely challenges the Court of Appeal's legal opinion expressed in the order rejecting a suspensive effect application is inadmissible. The infringement action by Yellow Sphere Innovations GmbH and Erwin Härtwich regarding EP 3 356 109 (vehicle frame with foam resin structural part) continues. |
| 2025-06-05 | UPC_APP_24411/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 365 | Prozessual | Vergleich | The Court of Appeal confirmed a settlement agreement between Tandem Diabetes and Roche Diabetes, terminating the appeal proceedings. The settlement arose after the Central Division Paris had dismissed the revocation action and maintained EP 2 196 231 as granted. |
| 2025-05-23 | UPC_APP_23301/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 265 | Prozessual | Zurückgenommen | The Court of Appeal permitted NJOY Netherlands B.V. to withdraw its appeal against a Paris Central Division decision dismissing its revocation action against Juul Labs. The proceedings were declared closed and the scheduled oral hearing cancelled. NJOY's application for reimbursement of court fees was also addressed. NJOY had limited its appeal to the issue of costs allocation in the revocation proceedings. |
| 2025-05-21 | UPC_APP_21951/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 223 | Prozessual | Abgewiesen | Court of Appeal (Panel 2) rejected Knaus Tabbert AG's application for suspensive effect (R. 223 RoP) pending appeal against a first-instance infringement decision in Yellow Sphere Innovations GmbH / Härtwich v. Knaus Tabbert (Düsseldorf Local Division, EP 3 356 109, vehicle frame with foam resin). The court held: (1) no obviously wrong application of law regarding infringement; (2) enforcement security was within the first-instance court's discretion and Knaus Tabbert failed to raise financial vulnerability of claimant in first instance; (3) the proportionality finding on recall, removal from channels of commerce and destruction was not evidently wrong; (4) the appeal would not become devoid of purpose if enforcement proceeded. |
| 2025-05-21 | UPC_APP_21951/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 223 | Prozessual | Untersagung abgelehnt | The Court of Appeal denied Knaus Tabbert AG's application for suspensive effect of the Dusseldorf Local Division's order of 10 April 2025 (UPC_CFI_50/2024) granting Yellow Sphere and Härtwich an infringement injunction concerning EP 3 356 109 (vehicle frame). The Court found no manifest error in the first-instance decision and no risk of the appeal being rendered devoid of purpose by enforcement. Key headnote: security for enforcement is a discretionary power of the CFI; arguments about the claimant's financial situation cannot be raised for the first time before the Court of Appeal if they could have been raised at first instance. |
| 2025-05-08 | ORD_16127/2025 | Court of Appeal | Generic Order | motionName.jurisdictional | Nur prozessual | Court of Appeal order changing the language of appeal proceedings from Danish to English with the agreement of both parties under Art. 49(4) UPCA and R. 322 RoP. The underlying appeal concerned the Copenhagen Local Division's refusal to order respondents to pay periodic penalty payments for non-compliance with a prior injunction. The Court of Appeal agreed the language change was appropriate given the limited scope of the appeal and both parties understanding English, and addressed translation costs of existing pleadings. |
| 2025-05-05 | ORD_21186/2025 | Court of Appeal | Decision By Default | Versäumnisurteil | Nur prozessual | The Court of Appeal ruled on issues of public access to the register under R.262.1(b) RoP and clarified the legal framework for reasoned decisions and default decisions, holding that access to written pleadings should not be granted to unrepresented members of the public and that costs should not normally be awarded in R.262.1(b) proceedings. |
| 2025-05-05 | ORD_21232/2025 | Court of Appeal | Decision By Default | Versäumnisurteil | Nur prozessual | The Court of Appeal addressed procedural issues in Meril Italy's appeal, ruling that a decision issued when the respondent was not properly represented constitutes a default decision subject to Rule 356.1 RoP, and that unrepresented public members may not be granted access to pleadings under Rule 262.1(b) RoP. |
| 2025-05-05 | ORD_21240/2025 | Court of Appeal | Decision By Default | Versäumnisurteil | Nur prozessual | Decision by the Court of Appeal (UPC_CoA_636/2024, 5 May 2025) setting aside a first-instance order that had granted a member of the public access to written pleadings under R. 262.1(b) RoP. The CoA held that public applicants for register access must be represented; an unrepresented person cannot validly lodge a statement of response; a reasoned decision under R. 235.3 RoP is effectively a default decision; and no costs should ordinarily be awarded in R. 262.1(b) proceedings. |
| 2025-04-30 | UPC_APP_19228/2025 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | motionName.appeal_decision | Nur prozessual | Court of Appeal (Panel 2) order staying appeal proceedings in a revocation action concerning EP 3 504 990 (a patent relating to nicotine/vaping products). The Central Division Paris had revoked the patent at first instance. Juul Labs appealed and applied for a stay pending parallel EPO opposition appeal proceedings (oral hearing scheduled for 14 November 2025). NJOY consented to the stay. The Court of Appeal granted the stay under R. 295(a) RoP / Art. 33(10) UPCA, finding that the EPO proceedings could be expected to conclude rapidly relative to the UPC's own timetable. |
| 2025-04-30 | UPC_APP_20180/2025 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | Court of Appeal order staying appeal proceedings in a revocation action concerning a patent for vaping/e-cigarette technology. The patent had been revoked at first instance (Central Division Paris). Juul Labs appealed and applied for a stay pending parallel EPO opposition appeal proceedings, which were accelerated with oral proceedings scheduled for 17 October 2025. NJOY agreed to the stay. The Court of Appeal stayed proceedings under R. 295(a) RoP as the EPO proceedings could be expected to conclude relatively quickly. |
| 2025-04-28 | UPC_APP_14082/2025 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | The UPC Court of Appeal granted Juul Labs International's application to stay the revocation appeal proceedings pending a final decision by the EPO Boards of Appeal in parallel opposition proceedings concerning EP3430921, noting that both parties agreed to the stay and that the EPO oral proceedings were scheduled for approximately the same time as the UPC appeal hearing. |
| 2025-04-25 | UPC_APP_16612/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application RoP262.1 (b) | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | The Court of Appeal granted a member of the public (Nicoventures) immediate access to written pleadings and evidence under R. 262.1(b) RoP, subject to conditions restricting use of those documents in other proceedings until the appeal is resolved. |
| 2025-04-25 | UPC_APP_13365/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application RoP262.1 (b) | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | Court of Appeal granted Nicoventures Trading Limited's request for access to written pleadings and evidence from appeal proceedings (Rule 262.1(b) RoP) involving Juul Labs and NJOY (nicotine product patents). Access was granted subject to conditions: Nicoventures may not file the pleadings with other courts (e.g. EPO Boards of Appeal) until the UPC appeal is closed, though it may use the arguments or prior art independently. Personal data in the documents was to be redacted by the Registry. Blanket requests for future documents were held inadmissible. |
| 2025-04-25 | UPC_APP_13352/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application RoP262.1 (b) | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | The Court of Appeal granted Nicoventures Trading Limited access to specified written pleadings and evidence from the NJOY vs. VMR Products (Juul) appeal proceedings (UPC_CFI_310/2023), subject to the condition that the documents may not be filed with other courts or distributed until the appeal is concluded. |
| 2025-04-17 | UPC_APP_16648/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 223 | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | Court of Appeal (Panel 2, Rian Kalden as rapporteur) dismissed Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH, and Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH's application for suspensive effect of the Mannheim Local Division's infringement judgment of 2 April 2025 against Kodak. The Mannheim Local Division had found infringement of Fujifilm Corporation's EP 3 511 174, ordered a permanent injunction, damages, information disclosure, product destruction and recall, and EUR 300,000 interim costs. The Court of Appeal held that Kodak had not demonstrated manifest errors in the first-instance decision – the complaints about priority, prior use rights, right to be heard, proportionality of injunction, and cost allocation did not reach the threshold of manifest error on a summary assessment. The Court also addressed R. 171.2 RoP (uncontested facts), clarifying that an uncontested fact does not automatically lead to the legal consequence for which it was invoked. |
| 2025-04-17 | UPC_APP_16915/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 223 | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | The Court of Appeal, acting through the standing judge, dismissed Barco N.V.'s application for suspensive effect of its appeal against a cost order made against it following dismissal of its application for provisional measures before the Brussels Local Division (UPC_CoA_329/2025). The Brussels Local Division had found jurisdiction but dismissed the provisional measures for lack of urgency and ordered Barco to bear costs up to EUR 112,000. Barco sought suspensive effect only as to the cost order. The application was dismissed as the cost order was not immediately enforceable. |
| 2025-04-11 | UPC_APP_16735/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 265 | Prozessual | Zurückgenommen | Order of Court of Appeal (Panel 2) allowing Ericsson's withdrawal of its appeal against the Local Division Munich's rejection of Ericsson's second counterclaim for revocation of EP 3 780 758 (counterclaim had been declared inadmissible as duplicative). The parties agreed each would bear their own costs. The appeal and the underlying second counterclaim for revocation were withdrawn. The court also granted 60% reimbursement of court fees. |
| 2025-02-21 | ORD_8874/2025 | Court of Appeal | Generic Order | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | The Court of Appeal (Standing Judge Ingeborg Simonsson) ruled on admissibility issues in Hanshow's appeal against the Munich Local Division's cost decision in VusionGroup's provisional measures proceedings (EP 3 883 277). The Court held that: (1) cost applications constitute summary proceedings; (2) R. 221 RoP does not always require a separate Statement of Appeal after leave to appeal; an application for leave to appeal that sets out the reasons and arguments may serve as both; (3) the Application for Leave treated as the Statement of Appeal was admissible. The Court addressed the substance of the appeal on this basis. |
| 2025-02-12 | ORD_7284/2025 | Court of Appeal | Generic Order | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | The Court of Appeal addressed representation requirements in a public access-to-file case concerning EP 3 646 825, holding that lawyers and European Patent Attorneys are not exempt from the duty to be represented when they are parties before the UPC, and gave Respondents 14 days to appoint proper representatives. |
| 2025-02-12 | ORD_64355/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic Order | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | The Court of Appeal ruled that lawyers and European Patent Attorneys are not exempt from the mandatory representation requirement under Rule 8.1 RoP when they are themselves parties before the UPC, and that representation is a public policy requirement the court may raise at any time. |
| 2025-02-12 | ORD_7289/2025 | Court of Appeal | Generic Order | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | Court of Appeal order in Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. v. SWAT Medical AB / Respondent 1 concerning representation (R. 8.1 RoP). The appeal arose from a public access application (R. 262.1(b) RoP). The court held: (1) even lawyers and European Patent Attorneys who are themselves parties must be represented before the UPC; (2) representation is a public policy admissibility issue the court may raise at any time of its own motion; (3) Meril Life Sciences' late argument that the access request was inadmissible from the outset due to invalid representation was brought too late under R. 226 and R. 222.2 RoP. |
| 2025-01-24 | UPC_APP_1178/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 265 | Prozessual | Zurückgenommen | Court of Appeal Panel 2 order permitting DexCom's withdrawal of its infringement appeal and declaring the proceedings closed. Background: the Paris Local Division had revoked EP 3 831 282 (continuous glucose monitoring) and dismissed all DexCom infringement claims; DexCom appealed but then applied to withdraw the action including the appeal. The withdrawal was permitted, proceedings closed, and 60% of appeal court fees refunded to DexCom. No costs decision required. |
| 2025-01-24 | ORD_3184/2025 | Court of Appeal | Generic Order | Prozessual | Zurückgenommen | Court of Appeal order allowing withdrawal of the infringement appeal and counterclaim for revocation filed by DexCom against Abbott companies, pursuant to R. 265 RoP. The withdrawal was allowed, proceedings declared closed, and the impugned first-instance decision became ineffective. Court held that withdrawal may be filed in appeal proceedings, that withdrawal of a revocation counterclaim renders amendment requests ineffective, and that closure of proceedings renders the impugned decision ineffective. |
| 2025-01-20 | UPC_APP_283/2025 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | Kosten | Abgewiesen | Court of Appeal dismissed SharkNinja's application for suspension of cost-determination proceedings (R. 295(d) RoP) as inadmissible, because the one-month period for filing a cost-determination application (R. 151 RoP) starts from service of the merits decision, not from service of the preliminary injunction order. Since no merits decision had yet been issued, the application was premature. The court further noted that R. 150/151 RoP apply by analogy where no main proceedings are initiated after unsuccessful provisional measures. |
| 2025-01-20 | UPC_APP_283/2025 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | Kosten | Nur Kosten | Court of Appeal (Second Panel) ruled on SharkNinja's application for a stay of cost assessment proceedings and/or extension of time. The Court held that the one-month period for lodging an application for a cost decision (R. 151.1 RoP) begins with service of the decision on the merits, not with service of the provisional measures order. The cost assessment was not stayed pending the merits proceedings. |
| 2025-01-13 | UPC_APP_68553/2024 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 265 | Prozessual | Zurückgenommen | The Court of Appeal permitted Valeo Electrification's withdrawal of its provisional measures appeal action (and the underlying main proceedings before the first instance) following the parties' agreement. The appeal proceedings concerned a preliminary injunction granted by the Düsseldorf Local Division on 31 October 2024 against Magna PT for infringement of EP 3 320 602 in Germany and France. The parties agreed no cost decision was needed. |
| 2025-01-13 | UPC_APP_68579/2024 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 265 | Prozessual | Zurückgenommen | Court of Appeal order allowing withdrawal of Valeo's appeal in provisional measures proceedings concerning an electrification patent, following withdrawal by Valeo under R. 265 RoP. Valeo had obtained a preliminary injunction against Magna at first instance (Düsseldorf LD) which was then appealed by Magna. The Court of Appeal had previously suspended the injunction. Valeo then withdrew its appeal. The Court allowed the withdrawal and closed the proceedings. |
| 2024-12-27 | ORD_68137/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic Order | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | The Court of Appeal decided on Syngenta's request to file a German-language exhibit without translation in the appeal proceedings, applying Rule 7 and Rule 13.1(q) RoP to the statement of response filed at appeal stage. |
| 2024-10-29 | UPC_APP_53031/2024 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 223 | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | Order of the Court of Appeal partially granting a stay of enforcement (suspensive effect) of a first-instance injunction against Belkin Limited and its managing directors in proceedings concerning Koninklijke Philips N.V.'s patent. The stay was granted specifically regarding the injunctive orders against the managing directors (defendants 2-4) and related cost/publication orders, on the basis of a manifest error of law in holding that a managing director of an infringing company is personally liable as a 'middle person' under Art. 63(1) UPCA solely by virtue of their role as managing director. The stay was denied as to the remaining defendants. |
| 2024-10-29 | UPC_APP_53031/2024 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 223 | Prozessual | Untersagung abgelehnt | The Court of Appeal partially granted Belkin's application for suspensive effect concerning the Munich Local Division's infringement decision (UPC_CFI_390/2023) in respect of EP 2 867 997. The Court granted suspensive effect specifically in relation to the publication order (Philips was not permitted to publish the impugned decision pending the appeal). However, suspensive effect was denied in all other respects as Belkin failed to demonstrate manifest error or infringement of fundamental procedural rights. The Court also held that a director of a patent-infringing company is not a 'third party intermediary' under Art. 63 UPCA merely by reason of their directorship. Security for enforcement under R.352.1 RoP must be ordered at the time of the decision, not retrospectively. |
| 2024-10-21 | UPC_APP_55674/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | Beweis | Nur prozessual | The Court of Appeal refused SharkNinja's application to admit new evidence (an exhibit from US proceedings, FBD 29) in the appeal from the Munich Local Division in Dyson's infringement action, finding that the evidence was not sufficiently relevant to the appellate issues concerning patent claim interpretation and that no justified reason for late submission had been established. |
| 2024-10-09 | UPC_APP_52471/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | motionName.appeal_decision | Nur prozessual | The Court of Appeal ruled on Dyson's application to exclude certain grounds of appeal raised by SharkNinja that were not included in the statement of grounds of appeal, and on SharkNinja's application to admit new evidence. The order addressed admissibility of late-raised invalidity attack combinations (lack of inventive step based on various prior art combinations) and admission of new evidence under Rule 222.2 RoP. |
| 2024-10-09 | UPC_APP_52471/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | The Court of Appeal (Second Panel) ruled on Dyson's request to disregard certain SharkNinja grounds of appeal and on SharkNinja's submission of new evidence (FBD 27) in the appeal against the Munich Local Division's order concerning EP 2 043 492. The court found that SharkNinja had sufficiently incorporated its first-instance submissions into the appeal grounds and rejected Dyson's request to disregard grounds (a)-(d). Ground (e) regarding JP 573 was not separately addressed given the court's assessment. New evidence FBD 27 (US proceedings submission) was found to be new and SharkNinja's justification for its late submission was accepted. |
| 2024-09-27 | UPC_APP_53213/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | The Court of Appeal issued a separate notification to NST (Network System Technologies LLC) pursuant to R.158.4 RoP, informing it that failure to provide the ordered security for costs within three weeks may result in a decision by default in the main infringement proceedings brought by NST against Volkswagen AG. |
| 2024-08-26 | UPC_APP_45255/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | The Court of Appeal ordered Ballinno B.V. to provide security for legal costs in favour of the Kinexon companies and UEFA in the appeal proceedings, finding that Ballinno's limited liquid assets gave rise to a legitimate concern that a cost order would not be recoverable; the security was set at a reduced amount. |
| 2024-08-21 | UPC_APP_47039/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | The Court of Appeal's standing judge ruled that AYLO's submission under Rule 9.1 RoP was inadmissible as filed without leave, holding that Rule 9.1 does not confer a right to file unsolicited submissions, and only an application and response are permitted under Rule 220.4 RoP. |
| 2024-07-26 | UPC_APP_33764/2024 | Court of Appeal | Application RoP262A | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | The Court of Appeal issued a procedural order in an appeal concerning security for costs and a confidentiality application under Rule 262A RoP, granting ARM an opportunity to amend its Statement of response to address the unredacted version of a confidential exhibit, and setting a schedule for any additional evidence and response. |