| 2026-01-16 | UPC_CFI_702/2024 | Paris LD | Infringement Action | Verletzung (Hauptsache) | Verletzt | Final decision (in French) in infringement action by IMC Créations against Mul-T-Lock France (EP 4 153 830, unitary patent - lock/padlock). Court found that the MVP 1000 padlock infringed the amended claims 1 and 6 of the unitary patent as limited. Revocation counterclaim rejected (claims 1 and 6 of the amended patent valid). Injunction and corrective measures (recall, removal from channels, destruction) ordered, with a 3-month delay before enforcement per parties' agreement. Disclosure of commercial information ordered. Mul-T-Lock to bear 90% of costs. Claims on the Swiss part of the patent rejected. Key headnotes: amended unitary patent takes effect from original grant date; national parts of European patent in non-UPC states assessed against the patent as originally granted. |
| 2026-01-15 | UPC_CFI_1357/2025 | Brussels LD | Preliminary objection | motionName.jurisdictional | Nur prozessual | The Brussels Local Division issued a procedural order on a preliminary objection (R. 19 RoP) filed by GC Aesthetics and Romed N.V. challenging jurisdiction in the infringement action brought by Establishment Labs S.A. concerning EP 3 107 487 B1 (breast implant). |
| 2026-01-15 | UPC_CFI_480/2025 | Milan CD | Revocation Action | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | The Milan Central Division (full panel: Postiglione, Klein, Roselinger) rejected Fisher & Paykel's request to introduce auxiliary requests 2A to 13A as subsequent amendments to the patent (EP 4 185 356) in the revocation proceedings. The Court held that under R. 50.2 and R. 30.2 RoP, subsequent amendments are only allowed on an exceptional basis; the preclusive nature of the front-loaded system means that amendments must be made in full at the earliest stage. The efficiency of proceedings is not a sufficient reason to allow subsequent piecemeal amendments. |
| 2026-01-15 | UPC_CFI_480/2025 | Milan CD | Revocation Action | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | Duplicate/version of the above order (same date and case) from the Milan Central Division rejecting Fisher & Paykel's request to introduce subsequent auxiliary requests 2A–13A for patent EP 4 185 356 in the revocation action brought by Fisher & Paykel against Flexicare. The reasoning and outcome are identical to the companion order. |
| 2026-01-15 | UPC_CFI_100/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Infringement Action | Verletzung (Hauptsache) | Nicht verletzt | Final decision on the merits in the infringement action by Ona Patents SL against Google Ireland Limited and others (EP 2 263 098 B1, Wi-Fi positioning patent). The court dismissed the infringement action, finding no direct infringement (the accused product did not possess every claimed component). The counterclaim for revocation was also dismissed (patent maintained as valid). Claimant to bear costs of the infringement action; 80% of counterclaim costs to defendants, 20% to claimant. Value in dispute: EUR 6,000,000 (infringement) and EUR 9,000,000 (counterclaim). Key headnotes: register governs proprietor standing; each component of a product must be present for direct infringement. |
| 2026-01-13 | UPC_CFI_1624/2025 | Munich LD | Application For Costs | Kosten | Nur prozessual | The Munich Local Division (in German) granted the claimant re-establishment of rights under R. 320 RoP for missing the deadline to initiate cost proceedings following a cost ratio decision, finding an excusable misunderstanding of the legal situation despite legal representation; a dissenting opinion was appended. |
| 2026-01-13 | UPC_CFI_1624/2025 | Munich LD | Application For Costs | Kosten | Nur prozessual | The Munich Local Division (English version) granted the claimant re-establishment of rights under R. 320 RoP for missing the deadline to initiate cost proceedings, with a dissenting opinion holding the application should be inadmissible for lack of legal interest. |
| 2026-01-13 | UPC_CFI_850/2024 | Mannheim LD | Application RoP262A | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | The Mannheim Local Division issued a further procedural order in ZTE v. Samsung addressing Samsung's request to produce a licence agreement, granting confidentiality protection under R. 262A RoP and permitting Samsung to file a further pleading on FRAND topics under R. 36 RoP. |
| 2026-01-13 | UPC_CFI_628/2024 | Munich LD | Infringement Action | Verletzung (Hauptsache) | Nicht verletzt | Final decision on the merits in infringement action by Emboline, Inc. against AorticLab srl (EP 2 129 425, medical device). Court dismissed the infringement action finding the patent not infringed. The defendant's counterclaim for revocation was conditional (dependent on a finding of infringement), and since no infringement was found, no decision was made on the counterclaim. Both parties bear their own costs. Key headnotes: infringement not excluded by normal non-infringing operation if patent-compliant use remains possible; irregular use of a medical device in line with professional practice can constitute infringement; conditional counterclaim limited in scope (Rule 263.3 RoP). |
| 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. |
| 2026-01-09 | UPC_CoA_328/2025 | Court of Appeal | Withdrawal (RoP265) | Rücknahme | Zurückgenommen | The Court of Appeal permitted Juul Labs International, Inc. to withdraw its appeal (UPC_CoA_328/2025) against the Central Division Paris revocation decision (UPC_CFI_314/2023), following the EPO Boards of Appeal dismissal of Juul Labs' parallel EPO opposition appeal on 14 November 2025. The appeal was permitted to be withdrawn without NJOY's consent as NJOY had no legitimate interest in the appeal being decided. Court fees were reimbursed under the pre-1 January 2026 rate of 60% (as the original action was filed before 31 December 2025). The headnote clarifies that the amended R.370.9(b) RoP (50% reimbursement) only applies to actions filed after 31 December 2025. |
| 2026-01-09 | UPC_CoA_257/2025 | Court of Appeal | Withdrawal (RoP265) | Rücknahme | Zurückgenommen | The Court of Appeal permitted VMR Products LLC to withdraw its appeal against the Central Division Paris partial revocation decision (UPC_CFI_310/2023, 22 January 2025), which had partially revoked EP 3 613 453, maintaining it based on claims 6, 7 and 8 in combination with claim 1. The withdrawal followed the EPO Boards of Appeal revoking the patent in full on 11 November 2025. Court fees were reimbursed under the pre-2026 rate of 20% (action withdrawn before closure of oral procedure). |
| 2026-01-09 | UPC_CoA_237/2025 | Court of Appeal | Withdrawal (RoP265) | Rücknahme | Zurückgenommen | The Court of Appeal permitted Juul Labs International, Inc. to withdraw its appeal against the Central Division Paris revocation decision (UPC_CFI_316/2023, 17 January 2025), which had revoked EP 3 430 921 across multiple UPC member states. The withdrawal was prompted by the EPO Boards of Appeal dismissing Juul Labs' appeal on 20 October 2025, confirming the patent's revocation by the EPO Opposition Division (decision of 10 September 2024). NJOY had no legitimate interest in the appeal being decided. Court fees were reimbursed under the pre-2026 rate. |
| 2026-01-09 | UPC_CoA_5/2025 | Court of Appeal | Withdrawal (RoP265) | Rücknahme | Zurückgenommen | The Court of Appeal permitted Juul Labs International, Inc. to withdraw its appeal against the Central Division Paris revocation decision (UPC_CFI_309/2023, 5 November 2024), which had revoked EP 3 498 115 in multiple UPC member states. The withdrawal followed the EPO Boards of Appeal dismissing Juul Labs' appeal on 17 October 2025, confirming the EPO Opposition Division's revocation of 4 March 2024. NJOY had no legitimate interest in the appeal being decided. Court fees were reimbursed under the pre-2026 rate. |
| 2026-01-08 | UPC_CFI_377/2025 | Milan LD | Infringement Action | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | The Milan Local Division partially granted Primetals Technologies' application for an order to produce evidence under Art. 59 UPCA / R. 190 RoP, requiring Danieli to disclose documents relating to alleged infringement of EP 2 624 977 in steel coiling installations supplied to Hoa Phat Group in Vietnam. |
| 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. |
| 2026-01-06 | UPC_CoA_2/2026 | Court of Appeal | Request for a discretionary review (RoP 220.3) | motionName.appeal_decision | Abgewiesen | The standing judge of the Court of Appeal (Rian Kalden) dismissed Angelalign's request for discretionary review (R. 220.3 RoP) of the Düsseldorf Local Division's procedural order of 16 December 2025 (which had disregarded certain non-infringement arguments and an exhibit in the provisional measures proceedings concerning EP 4 346 690). The request was dismissed as Angelalign failed to provide sufficiently specific references to support its claim that the impugned order was 'manifestly erroneous'. |
| 2026-01-05 | UPC_CFI_730/2025 | Hamburg LD | Application For Costs | Kosten | Nur Kosten | Hamburg Local Division cost assessment decision in the Nera Innovations v. Xiaomi proceedings. The Court determined the reimbursable costs for appeal proceedings under R. 220.2 RoP, holding that: (1) two authorised representatives are generally permissible but not necessary in R. 220.2 appeal on specific procedural issue; (2) the ceiling for reimbursable costs for main proceedings does not apply to R. 220.2 appeals on sub-issues; (3) travel expenses for at least one natural person are always reimbursable; and (4) even a successful party must generally bear its own costs in cost assessment proceedings. |
| 2026-01-05 | UPC_CFI_730/2025 | Hamburg LD | Application For Costs | Kosten | Nur Kosten | Duplicate of the Hamburg Local Division cost assessment decision (5 January 2026) in the Nera Innovations v. Xiaomi proceedings (UPC_CFI_730/2025), determining reimbursable costs for R. 220.2 RoP appeal proceedings on service of statement of claim. |
| 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. |
| 2025-12-30 | UPC_CFI_648/2025 | Dusseldorf LD | Infringement Action | Verletzung (Hauptsache) | Zurückgenommen | The Düsseldorf Local Division allowed ETRI's withdrawal of its patent infringement action against Shenzhen Transsion and related defendants. Each party bears its own costs; 60% of court fees were reimbursed to the claimant. |
| 2025-12-29 | UPC_CFI_723/2025 | Dusseldorf LD | Application for provisional measures | Einstweilige Verfügung | PI abgelehnt | The Düsseldorf Local Division dismissed Align Technology's application for a preliminary injunction against Angelalign entities concerning dental aligner patent EP 4 346 690, and addressed a request for leave to appeal the order. |
| 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. |
| 2025-12-29 | UPC_CoA_71/2025 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | Nichtig erklärt | The Court of Appeal dismissed VMR Products' appeal against the Central Division decision revoking EP 3 456 214 (vaporiser/e-cigarette patent). All claims, including auxiliary requests and dependent claims 12–14, were found to lack inventive step, primarily in view of prior art document Pan. The appeal raised procedural issues about the permissibility of new invalidity grounds in the Defence to the Application to Amend (R. 43.3 RoP) and the admission of new evidence. VMR Products bears NJOY's costs up to the applicable ceiling. |
| 2025-12-29 | UPC_CFI_351/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Infringement Action | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | The Düsseldorf Local Division addressed Canon's request for simultaneous interpretation from English into Japanese during the oral hearing, for corporate representatives joining remotely from Japan. |
| 2025-12-24 | UPC_APP_20809/2025 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | motionName.appeal_decision | Vergleich | The Court of Appeal permitted Sumi Agro Limited and Sumi Agro Europe Limited's withdrawal of their application for rehearing (R. 245 RoP) in the appeal UPC_CoA_523/2024, filed following ongoing settlement discussions between the parties. Both parties jointly applied for the withdrawal, agreed that no costs would be claimed, and requested release of the security deposit. The proceedings were declared closed. |
| 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. |
| 2025-12-23 | UPC_CFI_809/2025 | Paris CD | Infringement Action | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | The Paris Central Division ruled on a preliminary objection by Robert Bosch companies challenging its jurisdiction over an infringement action by Valeo Systèmes d'Essuyages concerning EP 2 671 766 (wiper system patent). The court upheld the objection and transferred the case to the Düsseldorf Local Division, finding that the Central Division lacked competence. The language of proceedings before the Düsseldorf Local Division was set as English. |
| 2025-12-23 | UPC_CoA_691/2025 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | Zurückgenommen | The Court of Appeal permitted the joint withdrawal of Lindal Dispenser GmbH's appeal against the Paris Central Division decision maintaining EP 3 655 346 as amended (revocation action UPC_CFI_202/2024). The proceedings were declared closed by consent. No cost order was made (both parties agreed). 60% of the appeal court fees were reimbursed to Lindal under R. 370.9(b)(i) RoP as the withdrawal was filed before the Statement of Response. |
| 2025-12-23 | UPC_CFI_683/2025 | Mannheim LD | Infringement Action | Verletzung (Hauptsache) | Zurückgenommen | Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. withdrew its infringement action concerning EP 3 471 419 against all defendants (Shenzhen Transsion Holdings and associated entities) before closure of the written procedure. Defendants 1-4 and 6 consented; Defendant 5 (ASD SAS) was unrepresented. No cost compensation was sought. Huawei was ordered a 60% reimbursement of court fees under R.370.9(b)(i) and R.370.11 RoP. |
| 2025-12-23 | UPC_CFI_538/2025 | Mannheim LD | Infringement Action | Verletzung (Hauptsache) | Zurückgenommen | Sun Patent Trust withdrew its infringement action concerning EP 2 903 267 against all defendants (Shenzhen Transsion Holdings and associated entities) before closure of the written procedure. Defendants 1-4 and 6-8 consented; Defendant 5 (ASD SAS) was unrepresented. No cost compensation was sought. Sun Patent Trust was ordered a 60% reimbursement of court fees under R.370.9(b)(i) and R.370.11 RoP. |
| 2025-12-23 | UPC_CFI_499/2025 | Mannheim LD | Infringement Action | Verletzung (Hauptsache) | Zurückgenommen | NEC Corporation withdrew its infringement action against all defendants (Shenzhen Transsion Holdings and associated entities) before closure of the written procedure. All represented defendants consented. Defendant 5 (ASD SAS) was unrepresented but showed no interest in proceedings. No cost compensation was sought. NEC was ordered a 60% reimbursement of court fees under R.370.9(b)(i) and R.370.11 RoP. |
| 2025-12-23 | UPC_CFI_501/2025 | Mannheim LD | Infringement Action | Verletzung (Hauptsache) | Zurückgenommen | NEC Corporation withdrew its infringement action concerning EP 3 057 321 against all defendants (Shenzhen Transsion Holdings and associated entities) before closure of the written procedure. All represented defendants consented. Defendant 5 (ASD SAS) was unrepresented. No cost compensation was sought. NEC was ordered a 60% reimbursement of court fees under R.370.9(b)(i) and R.370.11 RoP. |
| 2025-12-23 | UPC_CFI_850/2024 | Mannheim LD | Infringement Action | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | The Mannheim Local Division issued a procedural order in ZTE v. Samsung proceedings addressing Samsung's request to produce a licence agreement and requests for further written pleadings under R. 36/263 RoP on FRAND defence, as well as scheduling of an interim conference. |
| 2025-12-22 | UPC_CoA_886/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application RoP262.1 (b) | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | The Court of Appeal granted Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP's application for access to written pleadings (Statement of Appeal and Statement of Response) filed in UPC_CoA_768/2024 (Insulet v. EOFlow), to the extent that redacted versions were available. The Court affirmed that a law firm qualifies as a member of the public under R. 262.1(b) RoP and does not need a bona fide third party behind the application. Commercial interest in understanding UPC decisions does not preclude access. |
| 2025-12-22 | UPC_CFI_936/2025 | Mannheim LD | Application for provisional measures | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | The Mannheim Local Division issued a further procedural order in the InterDigital v. Amazon preliminary measures proceedings, addressing additional case management steps following the oral hearing of 14 November 2025. |
| 2025-12-22 | UPC_CFI_407/2025 | Dusseldorf LD | Withdrawal (RoP265) | Rücknahme | Zurückgenommen | The Düsseldorf Local Division accepted the mutual withdrawal of Atlas Global Technologies' infringement action and Vantiva's counterclaim for revocation concerning EP 3 353 901, with the parties waiving a cost decision. |
| 2025-12-19 | UPC_CFI_834/2025 | Dusseldorf LD | Generic Order | Beweis | Nur prozessual | The Düsseldorf Local Division revoked an earlier ex parte evidence preservation order against Roborock, finding that Ecovacs (the applicant) had violated the duty of complete and truthful disclosure under R. 192.3 RoP, rendering the order unlawful in its entirety. |
| 2025-12-19 | UPC_CFI_1600/2025 | Dusseldorf LD | Application for an Order for inspection pursuant to RoP199 | Beweis | Nur prozessual | The Düsseldorf Local Division ordered disclosure of the expert's detailed description from the MEDICA trade fair inspection to LiNA Medical, following the same reasoning as in UPC_CFI_1598/2025, after Tonglu Qianyan Medtech failed to appoint a UPC representative to access the CMS. |
| 2025-12-19 | UPC_CFI_1598/2025 | Dusseldorf LD | Application for an Order for inspection pursuant to RoP199 | Beweis | Nur prozessual | The Düsseldorf Local Division ordered disclosure of the expert's report from the MEDICA trade fair inspection to LiNA Medical, after Schultz Medical failed to appoint a UPC representative and thus could not assert confidentiality interests before the disclosure deadline. |
| 2025-12-19 | UPC_CoA_906/2025 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Abgewiesen | The Court of Appeal disposed of Viatris's procedural appeal (UPC_CoA_906/2025) under R.220.2 RoP as devoid of purpose under R.360 RoP. The procedural appeal concerned the Paris Local Division's panel review order confirming disregard of certain Viatris exhibits as late-filed. The Court found the appeal had no purpose because, after Viatris had filed this procedural appeal, the Paris Local Division issued its final order of 21 November 2025 rejecting Merz's application for provisional measures in Viatris's favour. Viatris could instead raise the issue of the excluded exhibits in the separate merits appeal (UPC_CoA_917/2025) brought by Merz against that final order. |
| 2025-12-19 | UPC_CoA_903/2025 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | Nur prozessual | A very short order signed by judges Nathalie Sabotier, Rian Kalden, and Ingeborg Simonsson on 19 December 2025, in the case UERAN Technology LLC v. Xiaomi group entities (partial overlap with UPC_CoA_902/2025). The text of the decision body is not captured in the excerpt; only the signatures are visible. This appears to be a procedural order in an appeal. |
| 2025-12-19 | UPC_CoA_902/2025 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | Nur prozessual | A very short order signed by judges Nathalie Sabotier, Rian Kalden, and Ingeborg Simonsson on 19 December 2025, in the case UERAN Technology LLC v. Xiaomi group entities. The text of the decision body is not captured in the excerpt; only the signatures are visible. This appears to be a procedural order in an appeal. |
| 2025-12-19 | UPC_APP_35643/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application RoP262.1 (b) | Prozessual | Abgewiesen | The Court of Appeal dismissed Docket Navigator's application for access to written pleadings and evidence in the Sumi Agro v. Syngenta proceedings (UPC_CoA_523/2024) under R. 262.1(b) RoP. The Court held that granting access to a commercial patent intelligence platform intending to republish documents to its subscribers is not an interest protected under Art. 45 UPCA. Copyright is not a general interest to be considered under Art. 45 UPCA. The requirement of representation and the proper conduct of proceedings would be compromised by granting access for commercial redistribution purposes. |
| 2025-12-19 | UPC_CFI_515/2025 | Dusseldorf LD | Application for provisional measures | Einstweilige Verfügung | PI erteilt | The Düsseldorf Local Division granted a preliminary injunction against Andreas Rentmeister and Shenzhen Moan Technology for infringement of HP's logic circuitry patent EP 3 835 965, deciding on the merits after the defendants failed to lodge an objection following deemed service. |
| 2025-12-19 | UPC_CFI_494/2025 | Hamburg LD | Infringement Action | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | Hamburg Local Division procedural order on HMD Global's request for production of licence agreements (R. 190 RoP) in Fraunhofer's SEP infringement action. The Court granted partial disclosure: HMD's request regarding the AAC Patent License Agreement with a named third party (whose identity is redacted) was granted subject to a confidentiality declaration, as Fraunhofer had consented. The request regarding a second bilateral agreement was not yet ripe for determination. |
| 2025-12-19 | UPC_CFI_494/2025 | Hamburg LD | Procedural Order | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | Duplicate of the Hamburg Local Division order (19 December 2025) on HMD Global's request for production of licence agreements under R. 190 RoP in Fraunhofer's MPEG-4/AAC SEP infringement proceedings against HMD Global. |
| 2025-12-19 | UPC_CFI_681/2024 | Munich LD | Counterclaim for revocation | Nichtigkeit (Hauptsache) | Nicht verletzt | The Munich Local Division dismissed both the infringement action (UPC_CFI_437/2024) brought by GXD-Bio Corporation and the counterclaim for revocation (UPC_CFI_681/2024) brought by the Myriad defendants, concerning EP 3 346 403 (a patent on data processing/gene expression analysis for identifying endogenous reference genes). The Court found no infringement because the accused products (Myriad test kits) did not use the claimed three-step normalization method — the products used a single-step average normalization that differed from the patented calculation method. The counterclaim for revocation was also dismissed, so the patent was maintained. Each party bears its own costs, with costs capped at EUR 600,000 total. |
| 2025-12-19 | UPC_CFI_660/2024 | Mannheim LD | Infringement Action | Verletzung (Hauptsache) | Nichtig erklärt | The Court revoked European patent EP 3 652 914 B1 in its entirety in the territories of France and Germany on the basis of the counterclaim for revocation filed by Palo Alto Networks. The claims (including the unconditionally amended main request and all auxiliary requests) were found to lack inventive step in light of the prior art. As a consequence, the infringement action was dismissed. Centripetal was ordered to bear the costs of the litigation. The value in dispute was set at EUR 2 million (EUR 1 million each for the infringement action and counterclaim). |
| 2025-12-18 | UPC_CFI_104/2025 | Paris CD | Counterclaim for revocation | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | The Central Division Paris issued a procedural order following the interim conference of 11 December 2025 in proceedings between IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland GmbH (revocation action) and Belparts Group N.V. (patent proprietor and counterclaim for infringement). The order addresses IMI's request for security for costs of EUR 500,000. The Court applied the test from the CoA decision in Chint v Jingao (July 2025): security requires a legitimate and real concern about recoverability of costs. As Belparts is seated in Belgium (EU member state), IMI had not demonstrated enforcement difficulties, and the security request appears to have been denied. The full dispositif was not captured in the available text extract. |