| 2025-11-11 | UPC_CFI_879/2025 | Mannheim LD | Application For Costs | Kosten | Zurückgenommen | The Mannheim Local Division permitted the withdrawal of Faro Technologies' application for cost assessment (Kostenfestsetzung) against Blankenhorn GmbH following an out-of-court settlement between the parties, with no costs order. |
| 2025-10-02 | UPC_CFI_636/2025 | Mannheim LD | Application Rop 333 | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | The Mannheim Local Division issued a procedural order under R. 333 RoP reviewing the earlier rejection of Centripetal Limited's saisie application against Palo Alto Networks concerning EP 3 281 580 (network security), upholding the rejection for failure to submit sufficient facts about the infringing system. |
| 2025-10-02 | UPC_CFI_636/2025 | Mannheim LD | Request to review an order ex-parte | motionName.ex_parte | outcomeName.other | The Mannheim Local Division granted Palo Alto Networks' request to review and revoked the ex-parte saisie (evidence preservation) order of 3 June 2025 (amended 9 July 2025) issued in favour of Centripetal Limited concerning EP 3 281 580. The Court found that the saisie order should not have been issued because it was not apparent from the ex-ante perspective that the Munich branch office premises (a co-working sales space) contained staff with access to the technical network security system Centripetal sought to inspect. The Court held that a saisie order cannot require a defendant to increase employee access rights or bring equipment not ordinarily present at the premises. The Court also noted that Centripetal had an ongoing duty of candour to update the Court on new material facts. Confidentiality measures from the original order remained in force. |
| 2025-09-11 | UPC_APP_33378/2025 | Mannheim LD | Application RoP262A | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | The Mannheim Local Division issued a provisional order classifying certain technical information in MediaTek's defence pleading as confidential under Rule 262A RoP, restricting access to designated persons including named in-house counsel of the claimant. |
| 2025-09-04 | UPC_APP_33309/2025 | Mannheim LD | Generic application | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | The Mannheim Local Division considered MediaTek Germany's application for security for legal costs from Huawei (a Chinese entity), addressing whether the enforcement of a costs order against a non-EU-resident claimant justified requiring security. |
| 2025-07-25 | UPC_APP_32933/2025 | Mannheim LD | Procedural Order | Prozessual | Abgewiesen | The Mannheim Local Division rejected Centripetal Limited's application for penalty payments against Palo Alto Networks for alleged non-compliance with the saisie (evidence preservation) order of 3 June 2025 (amended 9 July 2025) concerning EP 3 281 580. The Court found that Palo Alto was not obliged to provide access rights to its German branch office's sales-only staff beyond their ordinary duties, and was not required to bring hardware or increase employee access to the encrypted network security system. The premises to be inspected only contained sales and marketing personnel who had no access to the technical network system. Key holding: the inspection order does not compel a defendant to set up, bring or otherwise create access to items not ordinarily available at the inspected premises; it only requires passive toleration of inspection of what is already there. |
| 2025-07-11 | UPC_CFI_636/2025 | Mannheim LD | Procedural Order | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | Mannheim Local Division (upon referral from Court of Appeal) granted Centripetal Limited's application for preservation of evidence (saisie) against Palo Alto Networks' network security solution for alleged infringement of EP 3 281 580 B1. An independent court expert (Prof. Dr. Christoph Krauß) was appointed to monitor and examine the defendant's systems at its premises. |
| 2025-07-02 | UPC_APP_31707/2025 | Mannheim LD | Generic application | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | The Mannheim Local Division issued a procedural order in the Corning v Hisense/TCL/LG Electronics infringement action concerning EP3296274, granting a time limit extension for the defendants to file their statements of defence. |
| 2025-04-18 | UPC_APP_6597/2025 | Paris LD | Application RoP262.1 (b) | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | Paris Local Division partially granted LIFE365's application under R.262.1(b) RoP for access to the case file in the HP v. LAMA France proceedings. Access was granted to certain pleadings concerning the validity of the patents (statement of claim, statement of defence, claimant's reply) but only in redacted form respecting confidentiality orders. Access to infringement-related pleadings was denied as LIFE365 failed to show the cartridges were of the same origin. Access to exhibits was denied as these were publicly available from the EPO. |
| 2025-04-09 | UPC_APP_17158/2025 | Mannheim LD | Generic application | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | The Mannheim Local Division considered applications by Hisense, TCL and LG defendants for separation of the infringement proceedings into three separate actions by defendant group, addressing whether confidential information disclosure justified such separation. |
| 2025-04-02 | UPC_APP_8316/2025 | Mannheim LD | Generic application | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | The Mannheim Local Division issued a procedural order addressing applications by Hisense, TCL, and LG defendants for a stay of proceedings under R. 295(m) RoP, pending the outcome of parallel proceedings against the alleged glass manufacturer (ACT_66849/2024) in the Corning v. Hisense/TCL/LG infringement action concerning EP 3 296 274. The court denied the main request for a stay, while addressing the defendants' argument that proceedings had been artificially split. |
| 2025-03-26 | UPC_APP_5154/2025 | Mannheim LD | Application RoP262.1 (b) | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | The Mannheim Local Division issued an order on a third-party law firm's (AMPERSAND) application for access to case files under Rule 262.1 RoP in the Panasonic v. OPPO infringement proceedings, addressing the scope of public access to submissions and evidence. |
| 2025-03-03 | UPC_CFI_142/2025 | Mannheim LD | Application for preserving evidence pursuant to RoP192 | Beweis | Nur prozessual | Mannheim Local Division rejected an ex parte application for preservation of evidence (saisie) against an anonymous defendant for alleged infringement of an anonymous patent. The Court found the evidentiary threshold for granting the saisie was not met. This is a redacted decision with all party and patent details anonymised. |
| 2025-02-03 | UPC_APP_67470/2024 | Mannheim LD | Application Rop 265 | Prozessual | Vergleich | The Mannheim Local Division allowed the withdrawal of both the infringement action and the revocation counterclaim by Panasonic and OPPO respectively following a settlement by the parties after the main judgment was issued; proceedings were declared closed with each party bearing its own costs. |
| 2025-01-24 | ORD_3876/2025 | Paris LD | Generic Order | motionName.jurisdictional | Abgewiesen | The Paris Local Division declared the revocation action brought by Photon Wave Co. Ltd. against Seoul Viosys Co. Ltd. (EP 3 404 726) inadmissible, holding that a standalone revocation action by a third-party intervener in parallel infringement proceedings was not permitted under Articles 32 and 33 UPCA where the intervener had failed to comply with mandatory time limits for filing a counterclaim for revocation. |
| 2024-12-19 | UPC_APP_66323/2024 | Paris LD | Generic application | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | The Paris Local Division ruled on LAMA France's applications filed in enforcement proceedings following the main decision of 13 November 2024 against LAMA. LAMA requested a stay of enforcement pending appeal, a restricted confidentiality circle, and security. The court addressed the jurisdiction of the first instance court vs Court of Appeal to rule on a stay of enforcement during the appeal period. |
| 2024-11-22 | UPC_APP_62286/2024 | Mannheim LD | Generic application | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | The Mannheim Local Division dismissed the defendants' application to stay or postpone the judgment-delivery hearing, confirming that the pronouncement of the decision would proceed as scheduled on 22 November 2024. |
| 2024-07-24 | ORD_41423/2024 | Paris LD | Generic Order | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | The Paris Local Division issued a procedural order addressing the schedule and management of the Seoul Viosys v. Laser Components infringement action, including Photon Wave's intervention and a parallel revocation action at the Central Division. |
| 2024-07-10 | ORD_35569/2024 | Mannheim LD | Generic Order | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | The Mannheim Local Division issued a procedural order in MED-EL v Advanced Bionics (UPC_CFI_410/2023, EP 4 074 373) concerning the referral of the counterclaim for revocation and patent amendment request to the Central Division. Following a parallel central revocation action (ACT_576555/2023, UPC_CFI_338/2023) which was already near completion, the Court addressed the question of whether to refer the counterclaim and the parties' submissions on that issue. |