| 2026-02-18 | UPC_CFI_466/2025 | Dusseldorf LD | Application RoP262A | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | Provisional procedural order of the Düsseldorf Local Division (judge-rapporteur Dr. Zhilova) on an application by defendants Zapp AG and Zapp Precision Metals GmbH for protection of confidential information under Rule 262A RoP. The defendants sought to restrict access to specific paragraphs of their defense pleadings (Duplik) and certain exhibits (HE 137-145) as trade secrets. The order addressed the classification of the information as confidential and the specification of which persons would be granted access. |
| 2026-02-11 | UPC_CFI_336/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Application Rop 265 | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | The Düsseldorf Local Division issued a decision under R. 265 RoP on the withdrawal or termination of proceedings in case UPC_CFI_336/2024. |
| 2026-01-26 | UPC_CFI_999/2025 | Paris CD | Revocation Action | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | Order from the Paris Central Division (Panel 3) dated 26 January 2026 reviewing (under R. 333 RoP) the judge-rapporteur's earlier order on a preliminary objection (R. 19 RoP) in a revocation action brought by ALD France S.A.S. against Nanoval GmbH & Co. KG regarding EP 3 083 107 B1. The panel upheld the judge-rapporteur's ruling that ALD France S.A.S. has a sufficient independent interest to bring the revocation action notwithstanding that ALD Vacuum Technologies GmbH (an affiliated entity) had already filed a counterclaim for revocation in parallel infringement proceedings. The panel held: (1) ALD France and ALD Vacuum are not 'the same party' under Art. 33(4) UPCA merely because they are parent/subsidiary; (2) independent business activity is the relevant criterion; (3) competition law principles on economic units do not transfer. |
| 2026-01-12 | UPC_CFI_350/2025 | Paris CD | Revocation Action | Nichtigkeit (Hauptsache) | Teilweise nichtig | Paris Central Division (Paris seat) issued a decision by default partially revoking European patent EP2728089 ('Sequenced chamber wave generator controller and method'). The court found Claim 1 invalid for lack of novelty (anticipated by prior art D1 combined with D3, i.e. obvious) within the scope of the UPC contracting member states in which the patent was in force. The patent was partially revoked as to Claim 1. American Wave Machines failed to participate. Costs borne by American Wave. The patent was not entirely revoked; the revocation was limited to Claim 1's territorial scope in UPC states. |
| 2026-01-07 | UPC_CFI_433/2024 | Paris CD | Counterclaim for revocation | Nichtigkeit (Hauptsache) | Nichtig erklärt | Decision of the Paris Central Division (Panel 2) dated 7 January 2026 on Microsoft Corporation's counterclaim for revocation of EP 2 671 173 (mobile location-based search technology) owned by Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy. The court found the patent invalid for lack of inventive step over prior art documents BP07 and BP08. Auxiliary Requests I through further auxiliary requests were examined: Auxiliary Request I was found inadmissible or failed on added subject-matter; subsequent auxiliary requests lacked clarity or were inadmissible. The patent was thus revoked. The decision also addresses the requirements for admissible patent amendment applications under R. 30 RoP. |
| 2025-12-30 | UPC_CFI_1771/2025 | Paris CD | Action against the decision of the EPO (RoP97) | motionName.appeal_epo | Abgewiesen | Decision by the Paris Central Division (acting as administrative court under Rule 97 RoP) dismissing PAPST LICENSING's application to annul the EPO's decision rejecting its request for unitary effect for EP 3 327 608. The court upheld the EPO's refusal on the basis that the patent did not designate Malta (a participating member state at the time of grant), and unitary effect requires designation of all participating member states as per Art. 3(1) of Regulation 1257/2012. Key holdings: unitary effect tied to grant, not filing; territorial protection covers all participating states regardless of use; EPO's rejection was mandatory under Rule 7(2) DOEPS; proportionality and fundamental rights arguments rejected. |
| 2025-12-09 | UPC_CFI_999/2025 | Paris CD | Revocation Action | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | Paris Central Division rejected Nanoval's preliminary objection (R. 19 RoP) seeking dismissal of ALD France's revocation action. The Court held that ALD France S.A.S. and the ALD Vacuum Technologies GmbH (party in the Munich Local Division proceedings) are not the same party, so the revocation action before the Central Division is not inadmissible on grounds of party identity. |
| 2025-11-19 | UPC_CFI_539/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Application RoP262A | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | The Düsseldorf Local Division ruled on the partial release of an expert inspection report to Bekaert Binjiang (claimant), ordering redaction of trade secrets (prices, quantities, customer bank details) that were irrelevant to the infringement question, while authorising disclosure of technically relevant information such as wire coating characteristics. |
| 2025-10-20 | UPC_CFI_189/2024 | Paris CD | Revocation Action | Nichtigkeit (Hauptsache) | Patent geändert | Decision of the Paris Central Division (Paris Seat) dated 20 October 2025 in the revocation action by Meril entities against Edwards Lifesciences Corporation and the counterclaim for infringement by Edwards regarding EP 4 151 181 B1 (prosthetic heart valve technology). The revocation action was rejected; however, the patent was maintained only in the form of Auxiliary Request 2 (amended). The infringement counterclaim was granted: Meril entities were found to infringe claims 1, 4, 6–12 as amended. Edwards was granted an injunction preventing Meril from all infringing acts with products according to those claims in Contracting Member States, with an exception for XL-size valves (exceeding 30 mm) which was denied on proportionality grounds. Meril was ordered to provide information on infringing products, recall and destroy infringing products, and publish the decision in five media. Damages are to be determined in separate proceedings. Costs of the counterclaim were borne by Meril jointly and severally; costs of the revocation action were shared (each party bears own costs given the patent amendment dynamic). |
| 2025-10-17 | UPC_CFI_693/2025 | Munich LD | Application for provisional measures | Einstweilige Verfügung | PI abgelehnt | The Munich Local Division denied ONWARD Medical's application for provisional measures (preliminary injunction) against Niche Biomedical regarding EP 3 421 081 B1 (spinal cord stimulation), holding that the patent was likely invalid in its granted form and that auxiliary requests seeking provisional measures based on amended claim versions are generally inadmissible. |
| 2025-10-01 | UPC_CFI_611/2025 | Mannheim LD | Preliminary objection | motionName.jurisdictional | Nur prozessual | The Mannheim Local Division issued a procedural order on a preliminary objection (R. 19 RoP) filed by Grizzly Tools / Lidl entities against Robert Bosch's infringement action, ruling on international and territorial jurisdiction under Brussels Ia Regulation (Art. 71b) and holding that the preliminary objection is an internal procedural tool. |
| 2025-09-08 | UPC_APP_35761/2025 | Paris CD | Application RoP262A | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | The Paris Central Division granted Microsoft Corporation's application for confidential treatment (R. 262A RoP) of an exhibit containing invoices from its law firm, including details of hours spent and fees agreed, filed in the cost decision proceedings against Suinno (ACT_34440/2025 / UPC_CFI_724/2025, EP 2 671 173). The Court held that fee invoices and billing details qualify as confidential information under R. 262A because they reveal the client's financial standing, patent asset valuation strategy, and are covered by attorney-client privilege under R. 287 RoP. |
| 2025-09-01 | UPC_CFI_258/2025 | Paris CD | Preliminary objection | motionName.jurisdictional | Abgewiesen | The Central Division Paris rejected Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd.'s preliminary objection requesting dismissal of Emporia UK and Ireland Ltd.'s revocation action as inadmissible under Art. 33(4) UPCA. Seoul Viosys argued that Emporia was a 'straw company' acting as a nominee for ex-pert klein GmbH (the defendant in parallel infringement proceedings before the Court of Appeal), and therefore constituted the 'same party'. The Court held that the 'straw company' theory has a legal basis in EU law and may be relevant under Art. 33(4) UPCA, but that mere coordination of litigation strategies between a distributor and its supplier does not constitute proof that one acts as a nominee for the other. |
| 2025-07-29 | UPC_CFI_336/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Generic application | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | Procedural order in infringement action by Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd. against Aiko/Memodo/Libra/VDH Solar/PowerDeal/Coenergia entities (EP 3 065 184 B1, solar panels) on the cost ceiling under Rule 158 RoP. The court held that when a claim is brought against multiple defendants without specifying their respective liability, all defendants must have an equal opportunity to defend against the alleged infringement as a whole, and the cost ceiling should reflect the claim as brought against all defendants collectively. |
| 2025-07-28 | UPC_CFI_239/2024 | Paris CD | Revocation Action | Nichtigkeit (Hauptsache) | Patent geändert | The Central Division Paris rejected the revocation action filed by an anonymous claimant against Essetre Holding spa in respect of EP 2 875 923 B1 (a machine for machining walls). The patent was maintained in amended form as submitted in the Principal Request on 8 August 2024. The Court interpreted 'a working surface' as meaning 'one working surface', applying the ordinary meaning in context of the description and drawings. The revocation action was dismissed as the defendant had submitted a patent limitation during proceedings. Costs were apportioned 70% to the claimant and 30% to the defendant. The case value for costs purposes was set at EUR 100,000. |
| 2025-07-21 | UPC_CFI_231/2024 | Paris CD | Revocation Action | Nichtigkeit (Hauptsache) | Patent aufrechterhalten | Decision of the Paris Central Division dismissing the revocation action by Sibio Technology Limited against Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. concerning EP 3 831 283 B1 (glucose monitoring device / CGM sensor). All grounds for revocation (lack of novelty and inventive step) failed. The patent is maintained as granted. Abbott (defendant/patentee) awarded costs. Key headnotes: novelty and inventive step are separate grounds and cannot be combined against the same prior art; grounds for revocation of dependent claims must be stated from the outset; Rule 75(3) RoP does not apply when a counterclaim for revocation in a subsequent infringement action is filed after the oral hearing in an earlier revocation action. |
| 2025-05-29 | UPC_CFI_202/2024 | Paris CD | Revocation Action | Nichtigkeit (Hauptsache) | Patent geändert | The Central Division Paris rejected Lindal's revocation action but maintained EP 3 655 346 B1 as amended by the First Auxiliary Request submitted by the patent proprietor (Rocep-Lusol). The court held that the patent lacked industrial application in its original form but could be maintained in amended form. Claimant (Lindal) bears 70% of costs; defendant (Rocep-Lusol) bears 30%. |
| 2025-05-29 | UPC_CFI_202/2024 | Paris CD | Revocation Action | Nichtigkeit (Hauptsache) | Patent geändert | The Central Division Paris rejected the revocation action filed by Lindal Dispenser GmbH against Rocep-Lusol Holdings Limited in respect of EP 3 655 346 B1 (a pressure pack dispenser). The patent was maintained in amended form as submitted in the First Auxiliary Request on 26 July 2024 (maintained as EP 1 552 399 in amended form). The Court held that an invention contrary to accepted laws of physics lacks industrial application under Art. 57 EPC. Drawings must be used as explanatory aids but cannot be used to extract a characteristic when contradicted by the description. Costs were apportioned 70% to the claimant and 30% to the defendant. The case value was EUR 1.4 million. |
| 2025-04-29 | ACT_831/2025 | Paris CD | Application For Costs | Kosten | Nur Kosten | The Central Division Paris issued a costs order in connection with the revocation action UPC_CFI_454/2023, requiring Tandem Diabetes to pay Roche Diabetes Care's representation and litigation costs. The Court rejected Tandem Diabetes's request to stay the costs proceedings pending the appeal against the decision on the merits. |
| 2025-04-29 | ACT_831/2025 | Paris CD | Application For Costs | Kosten | Nur Kosten | The Paris Central Division issued a cost decision ordering Tandem Diabetes Care to pay Roche Diabetes Care's legal costs of EUR 112,000 plus travel expenses and court fees totalling approximately EUR 119,623, following Roche's success in the underlying revocation action. |
| 2025-04-29 | ACT_6322/2025 | Paris CD | Application For Costs | Kosten | Nur Kosten | The Central Division Paris issued a costs decision in the revocation action (BMW v. ITCiCo Spain), clarifying that costs incurred in the application to set aside a default decision are recoverable within the main costs proceedings, not as a separate cost decision. |
| 2025-04-29 | UPC_CFI_98/2025 | Paris CD | Application For Costs | — | Nur Kosten | Order of Central Division Paris Seat in BMW v ITCiCo Spain (EP 2 796 333) on an application for a costs decision. BMW (applicant/claimant in the revocation action, where a default judgment had revoked the patent) sought recovery of costs incurred in opposing ITCiCo's failed application to set aside the default judgment. The court held that an application to set aside a decision by default is an internal procedural remedy and does not independently give rise to costs: those costs may be claimed within the costs proceedings related to the underlying default judgment. |
| 2025-04-16 | UPC_CFI_539/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Request to review an order ex-parte | motionName.ex_parte | Nur prozessual | The Düsseldorf Local Division ruled on Siltronic AG's application for review of an ex parte preservation of evidence and inspection order (R. 197.3 and .4 RoP) obtained by Bekaert Binjiang Steel Cord Co. against Siltronic AG and Hinterberger GmbH & Co. KG concerning EP 3 212 356 B1. The court confirmed that a preservation order may encompass the seizure of delivery notes and invoices, that the list in R. 196.1 is not exhaustive, and that such measures may be used to gather evidence of individual acts of use. The court upheld the order in substance. |
| 2025-04-02 | UPC_APP_61657/2024 | Paris CD | Generic application | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | Order of the Paris Central Division (full panel) declining to issue a decision by default against Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy (claimant in infringement action) following Suinno's failure to provide security for costs within the Court-set deadline. Microsoft Corporation (defendant/counterclaimant) requested a default decision revoking the patent and dismissing the infringement action. The court set out key headnotes: (1) even where the default is evident and unjustified, the court retains discretionary power not to issue a default decision; (2) the court may decline a default where the evidentiary record at time of default does not allow sufficiently confident assessment of the non-defaulting party's claims. The court found the existing record insufficient to confidently assess the merits of Microsoft's revocation counterclaim and declined to revoke the patent by default. |
| 2025-03-31 | UPC_CFI_412/2023 | Paris CD | Generic Order | — | Nur prozessual | Paris Central Division rejected BMW's application to rectify an order of 9 January 2025 to add a costs provision relating to an application to set aside a default judgment. The court held that the failure to address costs in the operative part could not be corrected under Rule 353 RoP (rectification of obvious slips) because costs for the set-aside application are not a separate decision on the merits but ancillary to the main default proceedings, and any costs claim must be pursued in the separate costs determination procedure. |
| 2025-03-13 | UPC_APP_7866/2025 | Paris CD | Generic application | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | The Paris Central Division (Panel 2) rejected Microsoft Corporation's application to have Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy's infringement action declared manifestly inadmissible on the grounds that the claimant's representative allegedly had excessive financial authority over the claimant entity, finding that a lack of valid representation does not render the action inadmissible but merely requires the party to remedy the deficit. |
| 2025-03-03 | UPC_CFI_164/2024 | Paris CD | Generic Order | — | Nur prozessual | The Central Division Paris ordered claimant Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy to appoint a new patent-qualified representative to replace its existing representative who lacked the requisite independence required under UPC rules. The court granted a period for compliance and required ratification of prior acts. The defendant's request to reject the infringement action as manifestly inadmissible was deferred pending the claimant's compliance. |
| 2025-01-27 | UPC_CFI_52/2023 | Munich LD | Application RoP262.1 (b) | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | Procedural order (in German) granting patent attorney Christian Läufer of Fuchs Patentanwälte access to the written submissions and exhibits of the counterclaim for revocation proceedings (CC_581177/2023) in the case of Avago Technologies v Tesla, for professional/educational purposes. Neither party opposed. Access limited to the revocation counterclaim workflow. |
| 2025-01-24 | UPC_APP_67889/2024 | Paris CD | Application RoP262.1 (b) | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | The Paris Central Division (sitting as CFI) dismissed the Institute of Professional Representatives before the EPO (EPI)'s application for public access to written pleadings and evidence in the Suinno v Microsoft infringement proceedings (UPC_CFI_164/2024, EP 2 671 173). The Court held that the interest in protecting the integrity and independence of proceedings (particularly given the EPI's professional interest in the status of in-house European Patent Attorneys at the UPC) outweighed the access interest, as the matter raised a purely legal and general issue that did not require access to the specific case file. |
| 2025-01-22 | UPC_CFI_310/2023 | Paris CD | Revocation Action | Nichtigkeit (Hauptsache) | Teilweise nichtig | The Paris Central Division partially revoked EP 3 613 453 B1, finding that claim 1 lacked inventive step; the patent was maintained in amended form based on the independent validity of claims 6, 7 and 8 in combination with claim 1 as granted. Each party bore its own costs. |
| 2025-01-14 | UPC_APP_67325/2024 | Paris CD | Application Rop 265 | Prozessual | Zurückgenommen | The Paris Central Division permitted Bentley Motors Limited to withdraw its revocation action (ACT_19132/2024) against Network Systems Technologies LLC concerning EP 1 552 399. The respondent confirmed consent to the withdrawal and no cost application was filed by either party. The proceedings were deemed closed and all prior orders of no effect. |
| 2025-01-09 | UPC_CFI_412/2023 | Paris CD | Generic application | — | Nur prozessual | The Paris Central Division (Seat) ruled on an application by ITCiCo Spain S.L. to set aside a default decision (R. 356 RoP) issued on 16 September 2024 against it in the revocation action of Bayerische Motoren Werke AG concerning EP 2 796 333. The court interpreted R. 356(2) RoP to require that the applicant demonstrate inability to comply due to reasons beyond its control (unforeseeable circumstances or force majeure). The application was considered on its merits. |
| 2025-01-08 | UPC_CFI_189/2024 | Paris CD | Generic application | Prozessual | Nur Kosten | Order from the Paris Central Division dated 8 January 2025 on Meril entities' application for costs (App_56782/2024) seeking reimbursement of EUR 15,000 from respondents (SWAT Medical AB and others) incurred in defending a rejected public-access-to-register application. The order clarifies that a 'decision on the merits' under R. 150 RoP means a decision concluding litigation proceedings with res judicata effect; proceedings on a public access application are not 'litigation' in that sense. The court dismissed the costs application on the basis that a public access proceeding does not produce a 'decision on the merits' that triggers the costs provisions. |
| 2024-12-27 | UPC_APP_55923/2024 | Paris CD | Application Rop 333 | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | The Central Division (Paris) ruled on Suinno Mobile's application to vary the security for costs order in its infringement action against Microsoft, holding that a reduction in claimed damages did not affect the value of proceedings for security purposes. |
| 2024-12-27 | UPC_APP_61655/2024 | Paris CD | Generic application | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | Paris Central Division (panel) order on Microsoft Corporation's application for additional security for costs against Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy in infringement proceedings concerning EP 2 671 173. The court had previously ordered EUR 300,000 in security for costs; Microsoft sought at least EUR 500,000 more. The order addresses the standard for increasing existing security and likely grants a modification, treating the request as one to increase the existing security order. No substantive ruling on infringement. |
| 2024-12-26 | UPC_CFI_338/2023 | Paris CD | Revocation Action | Nichtigkeit (Hauptsache) | Patent geändert | The Paris Central Division dismissed Advanced Bionics' revocation actions (main and counterclaims) against MED-EL's EP 4 074 373 B1 (MRI-safe disk magnet for cochlear implants), maintaining the patent in the amended version of Auxiliary Request 0a after overcoming added-matter objections; costs were allocated 70% to the claimants and 30% to the defendant. |
| 2024-12-18 | ACT_589997/2023 | Paris CD | Revocation Action | Nichtigkeit (Hauptsache) | Patent aufrechterhalten | The Paris Central Division dismissed Tandem Diabetes Care's revocation action against Roche's EP 2 196 231 B1 (ambulatory drug infusion system), maintaining the patent as granted and ordering the claimants to bear the costs of proceedings, finding the grounds for invalidity (including lack of inventive step over prior art Diaz/Robertson/Glejboel) were not proven. |
| 2024-12-12 | UPC_APP_64780/2024 | Paris CD | Generic application | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | The Central Division Paris denied Microsoft Corporation's request for leave to appeal the order granting Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies leave to change its claim (reducing damages to EUR 2 million), holding that the order did not involve legal issues of different interpretations or serving a concrete interest of the parties. |
| 2024-11-29 | UPC_CFI_307/2024 | Paris CD | Revocation Action | Nichtigkeit (Hauptsache) | Patent aufrechterhalten | The Paris Central Division dismissed NJOY Netherlands B.V.'s revocation action against EP 2 875 740 B1 (a patent owned by VMR Products LLC relating to electronic vapour products/e-cigarettes with a magnetic cartomizer retention mechanism). The Court found the patent novel and inventive over the asserted prior art combinations (Cross + DiFonzo, Pan + DiFonzo, and common general knowledge). The patent is maintained as granted. NJOY as the unsuccessful party bears the costs up to a ceiling of EUR 500,001. |
| 2024-11-27 | UPC_CFI_308/2023 | Paris CD | Revocation Action | Nichtigkeit (Hauptsache) | Nichtig erklärt | The Central Division Paris revoked European patent EP 3 456 214 (relating to a vaporizer/e-cigarette device) in its entirety. The patent was found to lack inventive step over the prior art. All auxiliary requests for partial maintenance were rejected as either unsubstantiated or unreasonable in number. The defendant (patent proprietor VMR Products LLC) was ordered to bear the litigation costs. |
| 2024-11-26 | UPC_APP_55394/2024 | Paris CD | Amend Document | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | The Central Division Paris granted Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies leave to reduce the damages sought from a higher amount to EUR 2 million, holding that a reduction of the damages claimed constitutes an unconditional limitation of a claim that must always be granted under R.263(3) RoP. |
| 2024-10-14 | UPC_APP_33486/2024 | Paris CD | Application RoP262.1 (b) | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | The Paris Central Division ruled on applications for public access to pleadings and evidence filed by SWAT Medical AB (KIPA AB) in relation to revocation and counterclaim proceedings between Meril entities and Edwards Lifesciences concerning EP 3 646 825. |
| 2024-10-08 | UPC_APP_52773/2024 | Paris CD | Generic application | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | Paris Central Division (judge-rapporteur) denied Edwards Lifesciences Corporation's application for a time extension to file its rejoinder in proceedings UPC_CFI_189/2024, holding that the principle of procedural efficiency must yield to the fair trial principle only where the extension would not disadvantage the party who had already complied with the shorter ordinary deadline. Since the respondents (Meril) had already met the ordinary deadline, granting Edwards an extension would be unfair. |
| 2024-09-30 | UPC_APP_42517/2024 | Paris CD | Generic application | Kosten | Nur prozessual | Order of the Paris Central Division (full panel) on Microsoft Corporation's application for security for legal costs against Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy (a Finnish NPE). The court addressed the standard for ordering security: the financial position of the respondent must give rise to a legitimate and real concern that a costs order may not be recoverable or enforceable. The court found Microsoft established the highest possible insolvency risk, as Suinno lacked substantial assets. The court ordered Suinno to provide adequate security for costs in the infringement action (UPC_CFI_164/2024). The respondent's reciprocal request was rejected. |
| 2024-09-23 | UPC_APP_33484/2024 | Paris CD | Application RoP262.1 (b) | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | The Paris Central Division (Seat) ruled on a third-party access application (R. 262.1(b) RoP) by KIPA AB (an anonymised applicant) seeking access to all pleadings and evidence in the revocation action between Meril entities and Edwards Lifesciences Corporation concerning EP 4 151 181. The court assessed the applicant's interest as a competitor investor in cardiac implant technology. |
| 2024-09-17 | UPC_APP_40799/2024 | Paris CD | Application Rop 333 | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | The Central Division Paris panel upheld (on review under R.333 RoP) the judge-rapporteur's confidentiality order protecting certain documents submitted by Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies in the infringement action against Microsoft, and granted leave to appeal the underlying order. |
| 2024-09-17 | UPC_APP_42138/2024 | Paris CD | Application Rop 333 | Prozessual | Abgewiesen | Order of the Central Division Paris Seat in Microsoft v Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies (EP 2 671 173). The panel dismissed Microsoft's application to review the judge-rapporteur's earlier order that had rejected Microsoft's request to declare Suinno's action manifestly inadmissible under R. 361 RoP. The panel held that manifest inadmissibility requires the defect to be clearly evident without in-depth analysis. Microsoft's alternative request for leave to appeal and for a preliminary ruling by the CJEU on the independence requirement under Art. 48(5) UPCA was also addressed. |
| 2024-09-17 | UPC_CFI_189/2024 | Paris CD | Generic application | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | Central Division (Paris) order dismissing Meril's application to reject Edwards' counterclaim for infringement as inadmissible. The court retrospectively extended the two-month deadline under Rule 49 RoP by one week to 23 July 2024, finding the counterclaim timely. The court declined to hold a hearing before deciding. |
| 2024-09-16 | UPC_APP_5975/2024 | Paris CD | Generic application | Prozessual | Nichtig erklärt | The Central Division (Paris) granted BMW's revocation action by default against ITCiCo Spain S.L. under Rule 355 RoP, revoking EP 2 796 333 in its entirety for all UPC member states in which it was in force. The defendant failed to participate. |
| 2024-09-09 | UPC_CFI_88/2024 | Hamburg LD | Generic application | — | Nur prozessual | Preliminary procedural order from Hamburg Local Division dated 9 September 2024 in infringement proceedings brought by Roche Diabetes Care GmbH and F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG against Tandem Diabetes Care entities and VitalAire GmbH regarding EP 2 196 231. The order deals with Tandem's request to stay the proceedings. The court balanced the right to a fair trial (Art. 6 ECHR, Art. 47 EU Charter) with the principle that proceedings should normally conclude within one year (RoP Preamble point 7). No stay was granted; the case management timetable was maintained. |