| 2026-03-24 | UPC_CoA_935/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 223 | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | Court of Appeal dismissed the application for suspensive effect of an appeal against a default judgment of The Hague Local Division. The Court held that an application for suspensive effect must set out all reasons, facts, evidence and arguments at once; a second application is inadmissible unless new submissions could not reasonably have been made earlier. |
| 2026-03-16 | UPC_CoA_904/2025 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Nur prozessual | The Court of Appeal (Panel 1a) dismissed VIVO's appeal against the Paris Local Division's order deferring the decision on the admissibility of claim A.II of the Statement of Claim to the main proceedings. The CoA confirmed that the panel (not only the judge-rapporteur) was competent to make the deferral decision, and that the Paris LD did not exceed its margin of discretion. The appeal also concerned UPC_CoA_905/2025 (EP 3 852 468). |
| 2026-03-06 | UPC_CoA_813/2025 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | PI erteilt | The Court of Appeal extended the provisional measures (preliminary injunction) granted against Dreame International, Teqphone GmbH, and Dreame Technology AB to cover Dyson's 'New Dreame Products' and 'Newest Dreame Products' (EP 3 119 235, vacuum cleaner patent). The Court held that: (1) a structural element in a claim must be interpreted considering both its function and physical configuration; (2) the fact that an infringer has previously committed only certain infringing acts does not restrict an injunction to those specific acts – the existence of past infringement establishes a risk of all acts of use; (3) the date for R. 213.1 RoP compliance was set at 31 calendar days after service. |
| 2026-03-06 | UPC_CoA_813/2025 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | Nur prozessual | Court of Appeal referred a question to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling on whether an 'authorised representative' under EU product safety regulations (Regulations 2023/988 and 2019/1020) can be enjoined as an 'intermediary' for patent infringement purposes under Art. 9(1)(a) of Directive 2004/48. The case arises from Dyson's appeal against Hamburg Local Division's refusal to grant provisional measures against Eurep GmbH, the EU authorised representative of Dreame International. |
| 2026-03-04 | UPC_CoA_678/2025 | Court of Appeal | Generic Order | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | The Court of Appeal (judge-rapporteur Emmanuel Gougé) granted Hurom Co., Ltd.'s application for further exchanges of written pleadings (R. 36 RoP) in the appeal against the Paris Local Division's decision of 23 May 2025 dismissing Hurom's infringement claims and revoking several claims of EP 3 155 936. The CoA allowed further pleadings because Hurom had introduced two new auxiliary requests on appeal (not filed at first instance) and NUC had responded with new prior art documents (D5, D6) and invalidity arguments that Hurom had not yet had an opportunity to address. The principles of due process and the right to be heard justified the further exchange. |
| 2026-03-03 | UPC_CoA_887/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 265 | Prozessual | Zurückgenommen | The Court of Appeal permitted Washtower's withdrawal of its application for provisional measures under R. 265 RoP and declared the proceedings closed. Washtower agreed to bear the costs of both first and second instance of the provisional measures proceedings. The Court also determined the value in dispute at 66% of the value of a permanent injunction, in accordance with the Court of Appeal's guidelines on cost ceilings for provisional measure proceedings not followed by a merits action. |
| 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) |
| 2026-02-11 | 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. |
| 2026-02-03 | 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. |
| 2026-01-26 | 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. |
| 2026-01-21 | 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. |
| 2026-01-16 | 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. |
| 2025-12-29 | UPC_CoA_936/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 223 | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | The President of the Court of Appeal (Klaus Grabinski, Standing Judge) rejected Amazon's application for suspensive effect regarding the Mannheim Local Division's Anti-Suit Injunction (ASI) order of 22 December 2025, which confirmed an earlier order of 30 September 2025 prohibiting Amazon from pursuing or enforcing anti-suit injunctions against InterDigital's UPC patent enforcement actions. Amazon failed to demonstrate the order was 'manifestly erroneous', which is the threshold for suspensive effect under the UPC's case law. |
| 2025-12-24 | UPC_CoA_911/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application to leave to appeal a cost decision (RoP221) | Kosten | Abgewiesen | The standing judge of the Court of Appeal (Emmanuel Gougé) dismissed Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy's application for leave to appeal the Paris Central Division's cost decision of 6 November 2025, which had ordered Suinno to pay EUR 350,000 in costs to Microsoft Corporation in connection with the infringement action UPC_CFI_164/2024 (EP 2 671 173). The CoA found the costs award reasonable and proportionate given the EUR 5,000,000 case value and EUR 600,000 ceiling, and that Suinno did not demonstrate that the first-instance court's assessment was wrong. |
| 2025-12-17 | UPC_CoA_926/2025 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Nur prozessual | Procedural order of the Court of Appeal (Panel 1a) in the register-access appeal proceedings (Huawei v. TP-Link regarding access to UPC proceedings documents) on TP-Link's application for suspensive effect of the appeal under Rule 220.2 RoP, filed on 17 December 2025. The order addressed whether the Munich Local Division's orders of 28 November 2025 restricting register access should be stayed pending the appeal. This is a precursor procedural step to the substantive decision on register access issued on 17 February 2026. |
| 2025-12-09 | UPC_CoA_12/2025 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | — | outcomeName.other | Italian-language version of the Court of Appeal decision (same case as UPC_CoA_8/2025) on damages and costs in the Bhagat v Oerlikon appeal (EP 2 145 848). The CoA confirmed Bhagat's negligent infringement, rejected Oerlikon's reputational damage claims, and upheld the 80/20 cost split from the first-instance proceedings. |
| 2025-12-09 | UPC_CoA_8/2025 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | outcomeName.other | Court of Appeal decision on damages and costs in appeal by Bhagat Textile Engineers against the first-instance infringement decision (EP 2 145 848). The CoA confirmed that Bhagat was at least negligent (Art. 68(1) UPCA) having exhibited the infringing product at ITMA 2023 without checking the patent landscape. Oerlikon's claims for moral/reputational prejudice were rejected as insufficiently substantiated. The CoA upheld the CFI's cost allocation (Bhagat to bear 80% of first-instance costs). The CoA determined the damages quantum. |
| 2025-12-02 | UPC_CoA_894/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 223 | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | Order of the Court of Appeal single judge on Windhager Handelsgesellschaft's application for suspensive effect (Rule 223 RoP) of its appeal against the Mannheim Local Division judgment largely upholding bellissa HAAS GmbH's infringement action for EP 2 223 589 and rejecting Windhager's revocation counterclaim. Windhager alleged obvious errors in the first-instance assessment of direct infringement and the rejection of the revocation counterclaim. The order addressed the admissibility of the application (corrected after formality defects) and the substantive criteria for granting suspensive effect. |
| 2025-11-27 | UPC_CoA_904/2025 | Court of Appeal | Generic Order | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | The Court of Appeal (Panel 1a: Grabinski, Gougé, Blok) rejected VIVO's request for stay of the first-instance proceedings (UPC_CFI_362/2025 and UPC_CFI_361/2025) pending the appeal on the preliminary objection (R. 21.2 RoP) concerning EP 3 407 524 and EP 3 852 468. The court found no exceptional circumstances justifying a stay: the unresolved jurisdictional question did not constitute exceptional circumstances, and the costs of preparing VIVO's defence were insufficient. Sun Patent's interest in obtaining a timely decision outweighed VIVO's interest in avoiding preparation costs. |
| 2025-11-25 | UPC_CoA_464/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | Patent aufrechterhalten | The Court of Appeal dismissed the Meril companies' appeals against the revocation and counterclaim revocation decisions and Edwards' appeal against the infringement decision, upholding the patent EP 3 646 825 (heart valve). Key rulings: (I–VIII) All revocation and counterclaim appeals rejected; Meril bears 60% of Edwards' costs in the revocation proceedings and Edwards bears 40% of Meril's costs. (IX–X) The infringement decision was partially set aside: the injunction and preliminary damages order do not extend to XL devices (30.5mm and 32mm) that had not been scheduled for implantation in a patient by 15 November 2024. Preliminary damages reduced to not exceed €363,000 for Meril India and Meril Germany. The value of the proceedings is €8,000,000. |
| 2025-11-24 | UPC_CoA_911/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 223 | Prozessual | Abgewiesen | Court of Appeal dismissed Suinno's application for suspensive effect of its appeal (related to costs decisions made against Suinno by the Paris Central Division following a default decision dismissing Suinno's infringement action against Microsoft). The CoA held that Suinno had not demonstrated exceptional circumstances nor that the impugned costs decisions were manifestly erroneous. |
| 2025-11-07 | UPC_CoA_900/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 223 | Prozessual | Abgewiesen | Court of Appeal (judge-rapporteur) rejected Lepu Medical's application for suspensive effect of its appeal against a preliminary injunction granted by the Hamburg Local Division in favour of Occlutech. The CoA held that Lepu failed to demonstrate that the impugned order contained manifest errors or that the appeal would become devoid of purpose without suspensive effect. Lepu's claim that enforcing the injunction would damage its reputation was insufficient to outweigh Occlutech's interest in preventing imminent patent infringement. |
| 2025-11-07 | UPC_CoA_579/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application for provisional measures | Einstweilige Verfügung | PI abgelehnt | Court of Appeal allowed OTEC's appeal and set aside the first-instance order granting provisional measures to STEROS. The CoA found the appeal successful and ordered that STEROS's application for provisional measures be rejected. STEROS was ordered to bear the costs of both the first-instance and appeal proceedings. |
| 2025-11-07 | UPC_CoA_579/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application for provisional measures | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | The Court of Appeal (Panel 1a: Grabinski, Gougé, Blok, Meewisse, Schmidt) partially granted STEROS GPA Innovative S.L.'s application for rectification (R. 353 RoP) of the Court of Appeal's order of 7 November 2025 which had set aside the Hamburg Local Division's provisional measures grant and rejected the application for provisional measures concerning EP 4 249 647. The court corrected a clerical mistake in margin 45 (Table 1 changed to Table 10), but rejected STEROS' further argument that margin 43 contained an 'obvious slip' since the proposed change would affect the substance of the reasoning. |
| 2025-10-31 | UPC_CoA_755/2025 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | Prozessual | Abgewiesen | Court of Appeal dismissed Vivo's request to stay the first-instance proceedings (UPC_CFI_361/2025 and UPC_CFI_263/2025) and extend time limits pending the appeal proceedings. The CoA held that R.21.2 RoP (stay in context of preliminary objection appeal) cannot be applied by anticipation before an appeal against the preliminary objection order has been lodged. Under R.295 RoP, the CoA is generally not the appropriate body to decide on stays of first-instance proceedings, as the CFI is better placed to manage its own case. |
| 2025-10-30 | UPC_CoA_8/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application For Costs | Kosten | Nur Kosten | The Court of Appeal (Panel 1b: Grabinski, Gougé, Germano, Checcacci, Wilhelm) ordered Bhagat Textile Engineers to provide security for costs of EUR 19,000 (50% of the applicable ceiling) within 10 days in the appeal against the Milan Local Division's infringement judgment concerning EP 2 145 848. The court rejected Oerlikon's request for security regarding first-instance costs already awarded (as those are a matter of enforcement). Security was justified by Bhagat's financial difficulties, the non-enforceability of UPC orders in India, and Bhagat's explicit acknowledgment that it cannot pay the first-instance costs. |
| 2025-10-30 | UPC_CoA_8/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application For Costs | Kosten | Nur Kosten | Italian-language version of the Court of Appeal order (Panel 1b) ordering Bhagat Textile Engineers to provide security for costs of EUR 19,000 in the appeal concerning EP 2 145 848. Identical substance to the English version: security ordered based on Bhagat's financial difficulties and non-enforceability of UPC orders in India. Request for security covering first-instance costs rejected. |
| 2025-10-01 | UPC_CoA_681/2025 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | Nur prozessual | The Court of Appeal dismissed Bruker's appeal against the Munich Local Division's court fee assessment for Bruker's application for the determination of compensation (quantum proceedings) against 10x Genomics. The Court held that a request to lay open books (R. 131.1(c); R. 141–144 RoP) forms part of quantum proceedings, and the party filing it must pay both the fixed fee and the value-based fee for determination of damages, regardless of whether it is combined with a liability request. Bruker's argument that requiring a fee violated the principle of legal certainty was rejected. |
| 2025-09-24 | UPC_CoA_887/2025 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | Nur prozessual | Court of Appeal (Judge-Rapporteur) granted Appellants' request for a two-week extension of the time limit for lodging their Statement of Grounds of Appeal, from 26 September 2025 to 10 October 2025, citing the exceptional circumstance that both lead attorney and lead patent attorney were unavailable due to professional constraints including an EPO oral hearing. |
| 2025-09-23 | UPC_CoA_755/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop313 | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | The Court of Appeal (Panel 1a: Grabinski, Gougé, Blok) admitted Apple Inc. as an intervener in the appeal proceedings (UPC_CoA_755/2025 and UPC_CoA_757/2025) brought by Sun Patent Trust against VIVO concerning confidentiality protection orders under R. 262A RoP for EP 3 407 524 and EP 3 852 468. Apple was admitted because it is a party to the confidential licence agreements that VIVO's employees would have access to under the impugned orders, giving Apple a sufficient interest to intervene in support of Sun Patent Trust. Apple was given 15 days to file a Statement in intervention. |
| 2025-09-23 | UPC_APP_33679/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop313 | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | Court of Appeal admitted Apple Inc.'s applications to intervene in the appeal proceedings (Ericsson v. ASUS) concerning confidentiality orders relating to licensing agreements between Ericsson and Apple. The CoA held that Apple has a direct and present legal interest in the result of the proceedings under R.313.1 RoP, as the confidential information at issue concerns Apple–Ericsson agreements. Apple was granted 15 days to file a Statement in intervention and will be permitted to participate in the oral hearing. |
| 2025-09-16 | UPC_CoA_796/2025 | Court of Appeal | Action against the decision of the EPO (RoP97) | motionName.appeal_epo | Abgewiesen | Court of Appeal dismissed Bodycap's appeal against the EPO's decision to reject the request for unitary effect. The CoA held that the application to annul the EPO's decision was groundless: the one-month period to correct deficiencies in a request for unitary effect (R.7(3) UPR) is non-extendable and expressly excluded from re-establishment of rights under R.22(6) UPR. Furthermore, interlocutory revision by the EPO (R.91 RoP) was excluded because the action under R.97 RoP constitutes an expedited action falling under the exception in R.85(2) RoP. |
| 2025-09-16 | UPC_CoA_796/2025 | Court of Appeal | Action against the decision of the EPO (RoP97) | motionName.appeal_epo | Abgewiesen | French-language signed version of the Court of Appeal's decision in Bodycap v. EPO. Identical in substance to the English version: Bodycap's appeal was dismissed as groundless. The EPO's rejection of the unitary effect request was upheld because the one-month correction period is non-extendable and re-establishment of rights is excluded by R.22(6) UPR. |
| 2025-09-02 | APL_35616/2025 | Court of Appeal | Request for a discretionary review (RoP 220.3) | motionName.appeal_decision | Nur prozessual | Court of Appeal (standing judge Gougé) order on CeraCon GmbH's request for discretionary review (R. 220.3 RoP) of the Mannheim Local Division's refusal to grant leave to amend its counterclaim for revocation against Sunstar Engineering Inc. concerning EP 4 108 413. The Court held that leave to amend under R. 263.2 RoP must be refused if any one of the exclusion criteria in (a) or (b) is met — the disjunctive test. The request for discretionary review was therefore dealt with under this principle. No substantive patent validity ruling. |
| 2025-09-01 | UPC_CoA_805/2025 | Court of Appeal | Request for a discretionary review (RoP 220.3) | — | Abgewiesen | The Court of Appeal (standing judge) dismissed Centripetal Limited's request for discretionary review (R. 220.3 RoP) of the Mannheim Local Division's refusal to permit further written pleadings (R. 36 RoP) in its infringement action against Keysight Technologies concerning EP 3 821 580. The request for review was denied because the impugned order was not manifestly wrong. |
| 2025-08-25 | UPC_APP_34972/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 223 | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | The Court of Appeal rejected Sun Patent Trust's application for suspensive effect of its appeal against a Paris Local Division order, finding that granting VIVO employees access to highly confidential information pending the appeal did not irreversibly undermine the appeal's purpose. |
| 2025-08-25 | UPC_APP_34971/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 223 | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | The Court of Appeal received Sun Patent Trust's application for suspensive effect under Rule 223 RoP against an order of the Paris Local Division of 31 July 2025 granting certain Vivo employees access to highly confidential information in infringement proceedings. Sun Patent argued that the highly confidential licence information should be subject to an 'External Eyes Only' regime excluding Vivo employees. |
| 2025-08-21 | ORD_35283/2025 | Court of Appeal | Generic Order | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | Order from the Court of Appeal (UPC_CoA_363/2025) dismissing Microsoft's request for rectification of a Court of Appeal decision by default against Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies under R. 353 RoP. Microsoft sought to add a R. 356.3 RoP notice (that a further default decision would be final) to the decision. The Court held that such a notice must be requested in the proceedings concerning the default decision itself, and could not be added retrospectively by way of rectification. |
| 2025-08-21 | UPC_APP_33358/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop313 | Prozessual | Zurückgenommen | The UPC Court of Appeal granted the withdrawal of an intervention application filed by LIFE 365 S.R.L. and LIFE 365 ITALY S.P.A. in an appeal (LAMA v Hewlett-Packard) concerning patents EP2089230 and EP1737669, as the underlying appeal had already been closed before the intervention request was filed. |
| 2025-08-21 | UPC_APP_33358/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop313 | Prozessual | Zurückgenommen | Court of Appeal granted the application by Life 365 S.r.l. and Life 365 Italy S.p.A. to withdraw their application to intervene (R. 313 RoP), following a settlement between LAMA and HPDC in the underlying appeal proceedings. The parties in the main appeal had already withdrawn all their claims by decision of 24 July 2025. |
| 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 | 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. |
| 2025-07-24 | UPC_CoA_24/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 265 | — | Vergleich | Decision of the Court of Appeal dated 24 July 2025 granting withdrawal of all proceedings in the appeal by HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY (HPDC) and the cross-appeal by LAMA FRANCE, following an out-of-court settlement. The underlying Paris Local Division decision of 13 November 2024 had found EP 2 089 230 invalid and EP 1 737 669 infringed by LAMA. Both parties withdrew their appeals and the proceedings were declared closed. A 60% reimbursement of court fees before the Court of Appeal was ordered for both parties. No cost decision was required as both parties agreed. |