Outcome base rates

No merits decisions in the current scope.

• Appeals111

• Court of Appeal111 casesPI grant rate: 0%Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: —

• 2026-03-24UPC_CoA_935/2025Court of AppealProcedural onlyCourt 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.
• 2026-03-16UPC_CoA_904/2025Court of AppealProcedural onlyThe 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).
• 2026-03-06UPC_CoA_813/2025Court of AppealPI grantedThe 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.
• 2026-03-06UPC_CoA_813/2025Court of AppealProcedural onlyCourt 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.
• 2026-03-04UPC_CoA_678/2025Court of AppealProcedural onlyThe 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.
• 2026-03-03UPC_CoA_887/2025Court of AppealWithdrawnThe 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.
• 2026-02-17UPC_CoA_926/2025Court of AppealProcedural onlyOrder 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.
• 2026-02-17UPC_CoA_926/2025Court of AppealProcedural onlyEnglish-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.