| 2025-08-01 | UPC_CFI_40/2025 | Hamburg LD | Application For Costs | — | Nur Kosten | Decision of Hamburg Local Division in Samsung Bioepis NL B.V. v Alexion Pharmaceuticals (EP 3 167 888) assessing the costs of appeal proceedings following the Court of Appeal's rejection (20 December 2024) of Alexion's appeal against the dismissal of its application for provisional measures against Samsung Bioepis' Epysqli biosimilar. The court allowed the costs for UPC representatives and patent attorneys but reduced costs claimed for UK solicitors whose involvement (at higher cost than the actual UPC representatives) was not demonstrated to be necessary. |
| 2025-08-01 | UPC_APP_43786/2024 | Hamburg LD | Generic application | Kosten | Nur Kosten | Hamburg Local Division (1 August 2025) issued a costs decision following the dismissal of Alexion Pharmaceuticals' provisional measures application against Samsung Bioepis. The court assessed Samsung Bioepis' recoverable litigation costs, disallowing the costs of two UK solicitors as disproportionate but allowing the costs of the private expert Prof. Kontermann and reasonable travel expenses. |
| 2025-07-31 | UPC_APP_34041/2025 | Munich LD | Generic application | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | The Munich Local Division granted a short extension of the deadline for commenting on a R. 262.1(b) access-to-file application in NEC Corporation's SEP infringement proceedings against TCL, to ensure equal time limits for both parties. |
| 2025-07-31 | UPC_CFI_382/2025 | Milan CD | Application For Costs | — | Nur Kosten | Decision on costs from the Milan Central Division dated 31 July 2025 in proceedings where Novartis AG sought reimbursement of costs from Zentiva K.S. and Zentiva Portugal Lda following the dismissal of Zentiva's revocation action against EP 2 501 384. The court dismissed Novartis' costs application because Novartis failed to comply with the court's request under R. 156.1 RoP to provide substantiated evidence of costs (itemised hourly rates and hours), instead providing only a sworn general statement. The court held that: (1) once a R. 156.1 request is issued, costs can no longer be assessed equitably but only on proof; (2) confidentiality cannot be invoked to withhold cost information from the court; (3) costs for legal representation are not per se confidential under R. 262A RoP. |
| 2025-07-30 | UPC_APP_6997/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Generic application | Kosten | Vergleich | The Düsseldorf Local Division declared the infringement proceedings between N.V. Nutricia and Nestlé Health Science (Deutschland) GmbH concerning EP2359858 closed following the claimant's withdrawal after an out-of-court settlement, and set the value of the infringement action at EUR 250,000 and the counterclaim for revocation at EUR 500,000 with 60% court fee reimbursement. |
| 2025-07-30 | UPC_APP_33426/2025 | Dusseldorf LD | Generic application | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | Order of the Düsseldorf Local Division in Aesculap AG v Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe) (EP 2 892 442 B1) threatening penalty payments under R. 354 RoP. Following an injunction issued on 10 July 2025, Aesculap notified its intention to enforce and requested the court to threaten periodic penalty payments of up to EUR 30,000 per day for the defendant's non-compliance with the disclosure/accounting order. |
| 2025-07-29 | UPC_APP_33347/2025 | Munich LD | Application RoP262A | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | The Munich Local Division issued a procedural order under Rule 262A RoP in the Jinko Solar v. LONGi Green Energy infringement proceedings concerning EP 4 372 829, addressing protection of confidential business information submitted in the case. |
| 2025-07-29 | UPC_APP_24515/2025 | Milan LD | Generic application | Kosten | Nur Kosten | The Local Division Milan dismissed Oerlikon's application under R.353 RoP to rectify an alleged clerical error in a costs decision, finding that the EUR 80,000 total in the operative part was correct and consistent with the reasoning, and that the phrase referencing an additional EUR 20,000 was merely a drafting slip that did not alter the actual intended amount. |
| 2025-07-29 | UPC_APP_33784/2025 | Munich LD | Generic application | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | Munich Local Division (judge-rapporteur Dr. Zigann) granted a stay of both the infringement action (ACT_53813/2024) by Syngenta Limited against Sumi Agro entities concerning EP 2 152 073 and the counterclaim for revocation, at the joint request of all parties (R. 295(d) RoP). The stay may be lifted by any party after 30 September 2025. Scheduled hearing dates (interim conference 6 October 2025, oral hearing 10 December 2025) were cancelled. |
| 2025-07-29 | UPC_APP_31764/2025 | Mannheim LD | Application Rop 362 | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | Order of the Mannheim Local Division in Malikie Innovations v Discord rejecting the defendants' request under R. 361/362 RoP that the claimant be required to appoint a domestic representative for the German national part of EP 3 716 655 pursuant to s. 25(1) German Patent Act. The court held that the UPC regime under Art. 83(1) UPCA does not require compliance with the German domestic representative requirement. |
| 2025-07-28 | UPC_APP_33295/2025 | Dusseldorf LD | Application Rop 265 | Prozessual | Zurückgenommen | The Düsseldorf Local Division permitted the withdrawal of an application for provisional measures filed by DDP Specialty Electronic Materials US, LLC at the applicant's request and with the defendant's consent. The proceedings were declared closed, the scheduled oral hearing cancelled, and 60% of court fees (EUR 6,600) ordered to be reimbursed. No cost decision was made. |
| 2025-07-27 | ACT_6395/2025 | Paris CD | Application For Costs | Kosten | Nur Kosten | Central Division Paris issued a costs decision in Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v. Photon Wave Co., Ltd. following a preliminary objection in a revocation action. The court held: (1) a separate cost decision under R. 150 RoP is admissible after a preliminary objection that closes the proceedings before that division (jurisdiction declined and case transferred to Paris Local Division); (2) value of the revocation action set at EUR 500,000; (3) value of the preliminary objection proceedings set at one-quarter of the revocation action value (EUR 125,000); (4) expert costs for an opinion on Art. 33(4) UPCA interpretation were not reimbursable. Photon Wave bears 80% of Seoul Viosys's recoverable costs for the preliminary objection. |
| 2025-07-25 | ACT_7974/2025 | Brussels LD | Application For Costs | Kosten | Nur Kosten | Decision of the Brussels Local Division on costs (Rule 156 RoP) following dismissal of infringement claims in the main proceedings (UPC_CFI_376/2023) brought by a claimant against OrthoApnea S.L. and Vivisol B BV. The Court set out principles for cost recovery including timing of requests for ceiling adjustments, burden of proof for claimed costs, and excluded translation costs and certain security-related costs as non-recoverable. |
| 2025-07-25 | ORD_32794/2025 | Dusseldorf LD | Generic Order | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | Düsseldorf Local Division early procedural order (R. 37.2 RoP) in an infringement action by TRUMPF Laser- und Systemtechnik SE against IPG Laser GmbH & Co. KG concerning EP 2 624 031 B1 (a laser technology patent). The court decided to handle both the infringement action and the revocation counterclaim jointly (Art. 33(3)(a) UPCA), before closure of the written procedure, for reasons of procedural economy and to allow early assignment of a technically qualified judge. |
| 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. |
| 2025-07-24 | UPC_APP_33424/2025 | Munich LD | Generic application | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | The Munich Local Division issued a procedural order partially granting the claimants' request to use private interpreters at the oral hearing, permitting the interpreters to participate from an overflow room rather than in the main courtroom. |
| 2025-07-24 | ORD_33660/2025 | Court of Appeal | Generic Order | Prozessual | Zurückgenommen | The UPC Court of Appeal granted Hanshow Germany GmbH's request to withdraw its appeal against a cost decision in a revocation action concerning EP3883277, and ordered 60% reimbursement of court fees under R.370.9(b)(i) RoP as the withdrawal occurred before closure of the written procedure. Each party bears its own costs. |
| 2025-07-24 | ORD_33617/2025 | Mannheim LD | Generic Order | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | The Local Division Mannheim determined the value in dispute for a patent infringement action with a FRAND counterclaim by Samsung, holding that a FRAND counterclaim is not limited to the value of the infringement action and independently expands the value in dispute, as it goes beyond a mere defence. |
| 2025-07-24 | UPC_APP_32860/2025 | Dusseldorf LD | Application Rop 265 | Prozessual | Vergleich | The Düsseldorf Local Division permitted the withdrawal of both Truma's infringement action and CAN Srl Airxcel Europe's revocation counterclaim, following an out-of-court settlement. The proceedings were declared closed with no cost decision. Each party was reimbursed 60% of its court fees (EUR 6,600 each). The dispute value was set at EUR 500,000 each for the infringement action and revocation counterclaim. |
| 2025-07-24 | UPC_APP_33129/2025 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | motionName.appeal_decision | Nur prozessual | Court of Appeal (judge-rapporteur Emmanuel Gougé) granted OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH's application for leave to file a further written pleading under R. 36 RoP in the appeal proceedings concerning a preliminary injunction granted by the Hamburg Local Division (16 June 2025) to STEROS GPA Innovative S.L. for infringement of EP 4 249 647. STEROS had introduced new experimental evidence in its Statement of Response; OTEC was granted two weeks to respond specifically to the experiments (Exhibits GRU 15–17) and related paragraphs of the Response. The Court found the exceptional circumstances required by R. 36 RoP were met given the new evidence. |
| 2025-07-23 | UPC_APP_33456/2025 | Dusseldorf LD | Generic application | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | The Düsseldorf Local Division issued a procedural order extending a time period under Rule 9.3 RoP in an infringement action. The order relates to the protection of confidential information contained in the defendants' statement of defence and supporting exhibits regarding peptides used by the defendants and related analyses. |
| 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). |
| 2025-07-22 | UPC_APP_31180/2025 | Paris LD | Generic application | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | The Local Division Paris ruled on TIRU's request for referral of revocation counterclaims to the Central Division Paris and joinder of parallel infringement actions, granting the referral of counterclaims and addressing a possible stay of the infringement proceedings pending the parallel revocation proceedings concerning EP 3 178 578 (waste incineration). |
| 2025-07-22 | UPC_APP_30813/2025 | Paris LD | Generic application | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | Procedural order of the Paris Local Division in an infringement action brought by TIRU against VALINEA ENERGIE concerning EP 3 178 578. The order addresses TIRU's request to refer counterclaims for revocation to the Central Division (Paris) already seized of a nullity action, to join infringement actions, and to stay the proceedings. The order rules on procedural consolidation and referral of counterclaims. |
| 2025-07-22 | ACT_31493/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application For Costs | Kosten | Zurückgenommen | The Court of Appeal of the UPC permitted the withdrawal of a cost-assessment application (R. 151 RoP) filed by Philips at the Court of Appeal, which had been submitted in error. The correct forum for cost assessment was the Munich Local Division. No cost decision was required in the context of this withdrawal. |
| 2025-07-22 | UPC_APP_23201/2025 | Munich LD | Generic application | Beweis | Nur prozessual | Munich Local Division full panel order (Zigann/Pichlmaier/Schober) in inspection/evidence preservation proceedings (Beweissicherungsverfahren) between Nanoval GmbH & Co. KG (applicant) and ALD Vacuum Technologies GmbH (respondent) concerning EP 3 083 107. The court dismissed ALD's application to revoke the inspection order of 3 February 2025 under R. 198.1 VerfO, finding that Nanoval had filed the main action (on 3 May 2025) within the prescribed time limit. The court clarified (headnotes) that: (1) the court has no discretion over the length of the R. 198.1 period but does have discretion over its start date; (2) the rapporteur may change the start date if the expert report is delivered late; (3) such a procedural order is subject to panel review under R. 333 VerfO within 15 days. |
| 2025-07-21 | UPC_APP_18982/2025 | Paris LD | Application RoP262A | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | The Paris Local Division granted Sun Patent Trust's application for confidentiality protection (Rule 262A RoP) over parts of the statement of claim and exhibits in this SEP infringement action against Vivo entities, while denying certain broadly framed requests. |
| 2025-07-21 | UPC_APP_33240/2025 | Munich LD | Generic application | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | Procedural order recording the outcome of a FRAND interim conference on 21 July 2025 in Lenovo v. ASUSTek Computer (Munich Local Division, EP 3 682 587). The conference addressed the FRAND defence. Both parties need at least one month to continue settlement negotiations. The court set deadlines for further FRAND submissions (ASUS by 11 August 2025, Lenovo by 1 September 2025), confirmed the oral hearing on 19 November 2025 and a further interim conference on 25 September 2025 by video. |
| 2025-07-21 | UPC_APP_32869/2025 | Mannheim LD | Generic application | Prozessual | Abgewiesen | Mannheim Local Division rejected Malikie Innovations Ltd.'s precautionary request to harmonise/extend the time period for responding to a counterclaim for revocation, filed by Discord entities in an infringement action concerning EP 3 716 655. The court found the harmonisation was unnecessary: the counterclaim was served on claimant on 10 July 2025 (not the earlier 2 July 2025 date) when the substantive content reached claimant, so the time period for the defence to the CCR runs from that date. |
| 2025-07-18 | UPC_APP_24503/2025 | Mannheim LD | Hearing | Prozessual | Verletzt | The Mannheim Local Division found Kodak entities infringed FUJIFILM's EP 3 511 174 B1 (lithographic printing plate precursor) and granted an injunction including for indirect infringement, covering Germany, France, Netherlands, and the UK national part (validity assessed inter partes only). |
| 2025-07-18 | UPC_APP_24543/2025 | Mannheim LD | Hearing | Prozessual | Nicht verletzt | Decision of the Mannheim Local Division dismissing FUJIFILM Corporation's infringement action against Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, and Kodak Holding GmbH for the UK-validated part of EP 3 476 616. The Court found that the UPC has jurisdiction over the UK part of a European bundle patent and can assess validity as a prerequisite for infringement with inter partes effect, but that the infringement action failed on the merits (invalidity defence succeeded). The claimant bears litigation costs. |
| 2025-07-17 | ORD_22245/2025 | Munich LD | Generic Order | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | The Munich Local Division issued a scheduling order following the interim conference in the Sanofi v. Accord/STADA/Reddy/Zentiva infringement actions, setting out next procedural steps pending the written reasoning from the EPO Board of Appeal decision on the relevant patent. |
| 2025-07-17 | UPC_APP_33041/2025 | Mannheim LD | Generic application | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | The Mannheim Local Division rejected the request by one defendant to postpone the oral hearing in the provisional measures proceedings brought by Faro Technologies, holding that the urgency inherent in provisional measures hearings means postponement is only possible in exceptional circumstances. |
| 2025-07-17 | ORD_22248/2025 | Munich LD | Generic Order | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | The Munich Local Division issued a procedural order in the consolidated Sanofi pharmaceutical patent cases against multiple generics manufacturers (Accord, STADA, Dr. Reddy's, Zentiva), addressing scheduling and management of the parallel infringement proceedings. |
| 2025-07-17 | ORD_22246/2025 | Munich LD | Generic Order | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | The Local Division Munich issued a case management order following an interim conference in parallel infringement proceedings by Sanofi against multiple generics manufacturers (Accord, STADA, Reddy, Zentiva) concerning EP 2 493 466, noting EPO BoA uphold of the patent, scheduling the oral hearing for October 2025, and addressing expert evidence and confidentiality of interim damages calculations. |
| 2025-07-17 | UPC_APP_28969/2025 | Mannheim LD | Generic application | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | Procedural order in enforcement proceedings following a main infringement decision of 2 April 2025. Defendants applied under Rule 262A RoP for confidentiality protection over information to be rendered in the enforcement proceedings. The court ruled on multiple interrelated applications, directing parties to coordinate enforcement-related procedural submissions. |
| 2025-07-16 | UPC_APP_32611/2025 | Mannheim LD | Generic application | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | The Local Division Mannheim granted Samsung's request for a three-week extension of the rejoinder deadline in infringement proceedings brought by Fingon LLC, finding that the defendants had substantiated their need for more time to address new technical arguments raised in the claimant's reply, constituting a justified exceptional circumstance. |
| 2025-07-16 | UPC_APP_22732/2025 | Munich LD | Application Rop 265 | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | Minimal document from Munich Local Division – only a digital signature block by Anja Mittermeier is legible. The case involves NanoString Technologies entities and is classified as an Application under R. 265 RoP, but no substantive content was extractable. No ruling can be determined from the available text. |
| 2025-07-16 | UPC_APP_29027/2025 | Mannheim LD | Application Rop 333 | Prozessual | Abgewiesen | FUJIFILM Corporation's request for review of the judge-rapporteur's order rejecting its intended enforcement warning (penalty application under R. 354.4 RoP) was rejected. The panel upheld the judge-rapporteur's reasoning: no specific time periods or penalty amounts were fixed in the main decision for the destruction/recall/removal orders, and claimant should have challenged those points on appeal rather than via panel review. |
| 2025-07-16 | UPC_APP_30013/2025 | Dusseldorf LD | Generic application | motionName.jurisdictional | Nur prozessual | President of the UPC Court of First Instance granted POSITEC Germany GmbH's application to change the language of proceedings to English (the patent grant language) in Düsseldorf Local Division proceedings. The order followed established case law on language change applications, found the balancing of interests favoured English, and was not conditional on translation/interpretation arrangements. Costs were to be assessed with the merits proceedings. |
| 2025-07-16 | UPC_CFI_484/2025 | Paris CD | Application RoP262A | — | Nur prozessual | Procedural order granting Kinexon's application for confidentiality protection (Rule 262A RoP) of litigation cost information contained in a cost decision application. The court held that litigation cost information qualifies as confidential information under Rule 262A and Article 58 UPCA. |
| 2025-07-15 | UPC_APP_29243/2025 | Munich LD | Application RoP262A | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | The Munich Local Division issued a procedural order on BioNTech/Pfizer's R. 262A RoP application to extend confidentiality protection to certain information in the Promosome LLC v. BioNTech/Pfizer infringement proceedings concerning EP 2 401 365. The court largely denied the extension, finding that the information was already covered by an existing confidentiality order of 10 March 2025. |
| 2025-07-15 | ORD_32908/2025 | Court of Appeal | Generic Order | motionName.appeal_decision | Nur prozessual | The Court of Appeal upheld the Luxembourg Local Division's preservation of evidence order granted ex parte against MAGUIN SAS (and VALINEA ENERGIE) at the request of TIRU, the patent proprietor of EP 578 (an incineration furnace-related patent). The CoA confirmed the lower division correctly exercised its discretion on urgency and the risk of evidence loss. MAGUIN's challenge to the ex parte grant and its loyalty duty arguments were rejected. The appeal was dismissed on all substantive grounds. |
| 2025-07-15 | ORD_32908/2025 | Court of Appeal | Generic Order | Beweis | Nur prozessual | Court of Appeal order concerning an application for review of an order to preserve evidence in the dispute between MAGUIN and TIRU/VALINEA over patent EP3178578. The CoA upheld the first-instance order to preserve evidence, finding that: the time taken by TIRU to file the application did not undermine urgency; the risk of disappearance of evidence was sufficient; and the Local Division properly exercised its discretion. The appeal by MAGUIN was dismissed. |
| 2025-07-15 | UPC_APP_27426/2025 | Dusseldorf LD | Application RoP262A | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | The Düsseldorf Local Division issued a procedural order granting confidentiality protection under Rule 262A RoP for information contained in the defendants' statement of defence (peptide compositions and related analyses) in an infringement action by QIAGEN Sciences against bioMérieux concerning EP 2 726 883. |
| 2025-07-15 | UPC_APP_24226/2025 | Milan LD | Application Rop 365 | Prozessual | Vergleich | Milan Local Division received Pirelli Tyre S.p.A.'s application under Rule 365 RoP to record a settlement agreement with Kingtyre Deutschland GmbH (effective 25 February 2025) in an infringement action over EP 2 519 412. The proceedings against Kingtyre Deutschland were to be withdrawn pursuant to the settlement; the settlement amount was to remain confidential. The case against Tianjin Kingtyre Group Co., Ltd. (no settlement) continues with all of Pirelli's claims maintained. |
| 2025-07-14 | UPC_APP_26266/2025 | Milan LD | Generic application | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | The Milan Local Division rejected Sichuan Yuanxing Rubber's application for re-establishment of rights under Rule 320 RoP to file a late request for review of the provisional seizure order executed at the EICMA trade fair, finding that Pirelli had properly served the order at the time of execution despite the respondent's refusal to accept service. |
| 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. |
| 2025-07-10 | UPC_APP_30685/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 223 | Prozessual | PI erteilt | Procedural order by the Court of Appeal (UPC_CoA_581/2025, 10 July 2025) dismissing OTEC's application for suspensive effect of its appeal against a preliminary injunction granted by Hamburg Local Division on 16 June 2025 for EP 4 249 647. The Hamburg LD found infringement more likely than not and ordered OTEC to cease and desist across 18 UPC member states. The CoA held OTEC failed to demonstrate the exceptional circumstances or manifest errors required to suspend the injunction pending appeal. |
| 2025-07-09 | ACT_10138/2025 | Dusseldorf LD | Application For Costs | Kosten | Nur Kosten | The Düsseldorf Local Division issued a costs decision in connection with resolved infringement proceedings (FUJIFILM v. Kodak regarding EP 3 594 009 B1), ordering FUJIFILM to reimburse the Kodak defendants a specified portion of their costs. The Court declined to award the defendants' own costs of the costs procedure. |