| 2026-02-04 | UPC_CoA_891/2025 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | Nur prozessual | The Court of Appeal ruled on the admissibility of Centripetal's amended requests in its appeal concerning an application for preserving evidence and inspecting premises at Palo Alto's Mannheim offices. The order addresses whether amended requests submitted on appeal are admissible and how the preservation/inspection procedure should proceed. The Court ordered the evidence preservation and inspection subject to specified conditions. Judges: Klaus Grabinski (President), Peter Blok (judge-rapporteur), Emanuela Germano, Eric Augarde, Torsten Duhme. |
| 2025-11-03 | UPC_CFI_662/2025 | Mannheim LD | Infringement Action | Verletzung (Hauptsache) | Abgewiesen | The Mannheim Local Division rejected the preliminary objection (R.19 RoP) filed by multiple Geely group defendants challenging the jurisdiction and competence of the Mannheim Local Division. The Court found it had jurisdiction under Art. 33(1)(b) UPCA over all defendants as they are members of the same corporate group, share business relations as required, and face the same infringement allegation regarding the same patent claim. The Court also established that the requirement of a 'business relationship' under Art.33(1)(b) UPCA does not require complete identity of infringing acts but merely that the accused acts are aligned in purpose. The infringement action on the merits continues. |
| 2025-09-30 | UPC_CFI_320/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Application Rop 265 | Prozessual | Zurückgenommen | The Düsseldorf Local Division recorded Samsung's withdrawal of their counterclaim for revocation and application for cost decision following the court's 30 July 2025 decision dismissing the Headwater infringement action and revoking EP 3 110 069, with each party to bear own costs. |
| 2025-09-26 | UPC_CFI_26/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Withdrawal (RoP265) | Rücknahme | Zurückgenommen | The Düsseldorf Local Division recorded the withdrawal by Headwater Research LLC of its infringement action (EP 3 110 069) against Samsung Electronics entities after the court had issued a decision on 30 July 2025 dismissing the infringement action and revoking the patent; both parties to bear own costs. |
| 2025-08-01 | UPC_CFI_54/2024 | Munich LD | Infringement Action | — | Nichtig erklärt | Munich Local Division found that European Patent 2 391 947 (Headwater, relating to Android device network management) is invalid in all forms including as amended. The panel cancelled the second oral hearing planned for September 2025, indicating the patent was found invalid both as granted and in all amended forms proposed by Headwater. The infringement action was therefore dismissed. |
| 2025-07-30 | ACT_3932/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Infringement Action | Verletzung (Hauptsache) | Nichtig erklärt | The Düsseldorf Local Division dismissed Headwater Research LLC's infringement action against Samsung and revoked European patent EP 3 110 069 B1 to the extent of claim 1, on the basis of a successful counterclaim for revocation; all costs were borne by the claimant. The court also rejected a new argument on added matter as inadmissible under R. 9.2 RoP. |
| 2025-06-30 | UPC_APP_26306/2025 | Paris CD | Application RoP262.1 (b) | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | The Paris Central Division issued a procedural order on public access to the register under R.262.2(b) RoP in infringement proceedings concerning EP2661892 (Nokia v HP Printing). The court addressed whether written pleadings and evidence should be accessible to a third-party applicant (Bardehle Pagenberg) while balancing the integrity of pending proceedings. |
| 2025-06-30 | UPC_APP_19984/2025 | Paris CD | Application RoP262.1 (b) | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | Paris Central Division procedural order on Acer's application for public access to written pleadings and evidence in revocation proceedings (HP Printing/Computing Solutions vs Nokia Technologies, EP 2 661 892). The court addressed the conditions under which third-party access to court documents may be excluded for reasons of integrity of other proceedings, and whether access once granted carries any confidentiality obligation. Leave to appeal granted. |
| 2025-06-30 | UPC_CFI_181/2024 | Paris CD | Application RoP262.1 (b) | — | Nur prozessual | Procedural order from the Paris Central Division (Seat) dated 30 June 2025 granting Acer Computer GmbH's application under R. 262.1(b) RoP for public access to written pleadings and evidence filed in proceedings concerning an application to amend patent EP 2 661 892 B1 (Nokia Technologies Oy vs HP Printing). The court found Acer had a specific interest in the validity of the patent given that Nokia had brought an infringement action against Acer based on the same patent. Access was granted without ongoing confidentiality obligations post-access. |
| 2025-06-30 | UPC_CFI_181/2024 | Paris CD | Application RoP262.1 (b) | — | Nur prozessual | Procedural order granting Bardehle Pagenberg Partnerschaft mbB (a third-party applicant) access to written pleadings and evidence filed in the proceedings, subject to a confidentiality obligation while proceedings are pending. The court held that public access may be granted before proceedings end and the court may impose conditions to protect the integrity of proceedings. |
| 2025-06-15 | UPC_CFI_26/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Infringement Action | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | Düsseldorf Local Division dismissed Samsung's application for security for costs against Headwater Research LLC under R. 158 RoP. The Court found that while enforcing a cost order against a US-domiciled entity might be more burdensome, the evidence showed Headwater generates recurring revenues from licensing, making the concern about non-recovery insufficiently justified. |
| 2025-03-03 | UPC_CFI_54/2024 | Munich LD | Infringement Action | — | Nur prozessual | Procedural order issued by the Munich Local Division following the Interim Conference of 28 February 2025 in two consolidated infringement actions by Headwater Research LLC against Samsung. The order addressed procedural matters including inadmissibility of Samsung's invalidity attack under Art. 138(1)(e) EPC, the standing-to-sue issue, treatment of a witness statement, and admissibility of late-filed documents ZP8-ZP9. No substantive ruling on infringement or validity. |
| 2025-02-24 | UPC_CoA_540/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | PI abgelehnt | Court of Appeal rejected Biolitec's appeal against the Düsseldorf Local Division's refusal to grant a preliminary injunction. The CoA upheld the first-instance order, finding that Biolitec had not demonstrated the necessity of provisional measures: proceedings on the merits could be awaited; the status quo on the market had existed for years before the patent was granted; and Biolitec failed to demonstrate sufficient evidence of urgency regarding stocking or tender-related harm. Biolitec was ordered to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings. |
| 2025-02-24 | UPC_CoA_540/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | PI abgelehnt | German-language signed version of the Court of Appeal order rejecting Biolitec's appeal in the provisional measures proceedings against Light Guide Optics and SIA LIGHTGUIDE International. Identical in substance to the English version: appeal rejected, Biolitec ordered to bear costs. The provisional injunction was denied because proceedings on the merits could be awaited and necessity was not demonstrated. |
| 2025-02-10 | UPC_APP_3474/2025 | Helsinki LD | Generic application | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | Helsinki Local Division granted AIM Sport Development AG's application under Rule 263 RoP for leave to amend its infringement case (replacing AIM Sport Vision AG as claimant) and to add TGI Sport Virtual UK Limited as a new defendant under Rule 305 RoP. The court allowed the amendment noting the risk of irreconcilable decisions from different courts if not joined. The defendants (Supponor companies) were ordered to file their statement of defence within three months. Leave to appeal was granted. |
| 2024-10-29 | UPC_APP_58951/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Generic application | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | The Düsseldorf Local Division issued a procedural order in the infringement action (Dolby vs HP entities) addressing applications related to the main action, counterclaim for revocation, and a procedural application. |
| 2024-10-02 | UPC_CFI_54/2024 | Munich LD | Generic application | — | Nur prozessual | Procedural order on Samsung Electronics entities' application for security for costs (Rule 158 RoP) against Claimant Headwater Research LLC, a US-based patent assertion entity. Applying the CoA standard that the claimant's financial position must give rise to legitimate and real concern about recoverability of a potential cost order, the court assessed whether EUR 200,000 security was appropriate. |
| 2024-09-25 | UPC_CoA_182/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | — | Nur prozessual | Rectification order of the Court of Appeal correcting an obvious clerical error in the operative part of the appeal order of 25 September 2024 (Mammut v Ortovox). In item 3 of the original order, 'Antragsgegnerin' was incorrectly used instead of 'Ortovox'; the corrected wording orders Mammut to reimburse Ortovox further provisional costs of EUR 19,858.40. |
| 2024-09-25 | UPC_CoA_182/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | — | PI erteilt | The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal by Mammut Sports Group and confirmed the provisional measures order issued by the Court of First Instance (Local Division) in favour of Ortovox. The Court rejected Mammut's attempts to introduce new submissions and its counterclaim for revocation in the appeal proceedings. The Court confirmed the provisional measures (seizure order and publication), the threatened penalty payment, and the security ordered. The Court additionally ordered Mammut to reimburse Ortovox's further interim costs of EUR 19,858.40 and to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings. Key legal principles established include: discretion to consider submissions rightly rejected at first instance; urgency requirements under R.211.4 RoP; irreparable harm not being a necessary condition for provisional measures; and applicability of R.263 RoP to provisional measures proceedings. |
| 2024-09-11 | UPC_CFI_127/2024 | Munich LD | Generic application | — | Nur prozessual | Munich Local Division ordered correction of party designations under R.305 RoP by analogy. The Court corrected the names and addresses of defendants 3 and 5 following identification that one defendant did not exist at its stated address and another was incorrectly named. The Registry was instructed to re-serve the statement of claim on the corrected defendant 5. |
| 2024-09-03 | UPC_CoA_188/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | — | Nur prozessual | Order of the Court of Appeal dated 3 September 2024 on AYLO entities' appeal against the Mannheim Local Division's rejection of their preliminary objections in infringement proceedings brought by DISH Technologies and Sling TV regarding EP 2 479 956. The CoA dismissed AYLO's appeal and upheld the CFI's rulings on: (1) international jurisdiction of the UPC (Art. 7(2) Brussels I in conjunction with Art. 71b(1)) – jurisdiction exists if the patent has effect in at least one Contracting Member State and alleged internet-accessible services can cause damage there; (2) competence of the Mannheim Local Division; (3) rejection of the parallel national proceedings argument under Art. 30(2) Brussels I; and (4) confirmation that the list of preliminary objections under R. 19.1 RoP is exhaustive – abuse of process and manifest inadmissibility are not recognised as unwritten preliminary objections. |
| 2024-09-03 | UPC_CoA_188/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | — | Abgewiesen | The Court of Appeal dismissed AYLO's appeal against the Munich Local Division's rejection of AYLO's preliminary objection challenging UPC jurisdiction and competence. The Court of Appeal upheld UPC jurisdiction under Art. 7(2) Brussels I recast and Art. 71b(1) in conjunction with Art. 33(1)(a) UPCA, holding that jurisdiction exists where a European patent has effect in at least one Contracting Member State and alleged damage may occur there (including via internet access). The list of preliminary objections in R. 19.1 RoP is exhaustive; defences based on abusive procedural conduct and manifest lack of foundation are not admissible as preliminary objections. |
| 2024-06-27 | UPC_CFI_457/2023 | Dusseldorf LD | Generic application | — | Nur prozessual | The Düsseldorf Local Division issued a procedural order in Dolby International's HEVC-SEP infringement action against HP entities concerning EP 3 490 258 B1. The order addressed an extension of time for Dolby's reply brief necessitated by a confidentiality protection application (R. 262A) over HP's FRAND licence negotiation submissions. The court held that where a R. 262A application temporarily prevents the claimant from consulting Access Advance (the pool administrator), a full time extension—not merely a partial one—may be granted where it does not prejudice the oral hearing date. |
| 2024-05-13 | APL_8/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | PI abgelehnt | Order by the Court of Appeal (UPC_CoA_1/2024, 13 May 2024) dismissing VusionGroup SA's (formerly SES-imagotag) appeal against the first-instance refusal of a preliminary injunction based on unitary patent EP 3 883 277 (electronic shelf labels). The CoA found that Hanshow's products do not fall within claim 1 because the antenna is not positioned further towards the front face than the circuit board as required; VusionGroup was ordered to bear costs. |
| 2024-05-13 | UPC_CoA_1/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | — | PI abgelehnt | Order of the Court of Appeal (Panel 1, with technical judges) dismissing the appeal by VusionGroup SA (formerly SES-imagotag SA) against the Munich Local Division's rejection of its application for provisional measures against Hanshow Technology and related entities regarding electronic shelf labels. The Court of Appeal, applying a balance-of-probabilities standard, found that none of Hanshow's contested products fell within the scope of protection of claim 1 of EP 3 883 277, because the antenna was not positioned more to the front of the label than the printed circuit board as required by the claim. The court held that claim features must always be interpreted in light of the claim as a whole. The appeal was rejected and the appellant was ordered to bear the costs of appeal. |
| 2023-10-20 | UPC_CFI_214/2023 | Helsinki LD | Preliminary objection | motionName.jurisdictional | Nur prozessual | The Helsinki Local Division issued an order in a preliminary objection proceeding in an infringement action by AIM Sport Vision AG against Supponor entities; the decision text is largely redacted or not available in the excerpt. |