Outcome base rates

No merits decisions in the current scope.

• Procedural & sub-applications30

• Nordic-Baltic RD25 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: —
• Mannheim LD2 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: —
• Hamburg LD1 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: —
• Dusseldorf LD1 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: —
• Copenhagen LD1 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: —

• 2025-12-05UPC_CFI_775/2025Nordic-Baltic RDProcedural onlyThe Nordic-Baltic Regional Division stayed the cost proceedings between Edwards Lifesciences and Meril pending the outcome of EPO Board of Appeal opposition proceedings against EP 3 769 722, and provisionally ordered confidentiality obligations by mutual agreement of the parties.
• 2025-12-05UPC_CFI_492/2024Copenhagen LDoutcomeName.otherThe Copenhagen Local Division (in Danish) imposed penalty payments of EUR 67,500 on HGSystem ApS and associated entities for delayed compliance with a preservation of evidence order in proceedings concerning EP 4 238 202 B1. The defendants had failed to provide access codes and login information for financial systems, email accounts, and a seized computer for 36 days. The Court found penalties of EUR 5,000 per day appropriate for the first 18-day period and EUR 2,500 per day for the subsequent 18 days, acknowledging that penalties also serve a punitive function even where the obligation has since been fulfilled. Costs deferred to the main proceedings.
• 2025-09-02UPC_APP_35269/2025Nordic-Baltic RDProcedural onlyOrder of the Nordic-Baltic Regional Division in Edwards Lifesciences v Meril Life Sciences et al. (EP 3 769 722) on a request for rectification of the decision on the merits of 21 July 2025. The prior decision on the merits found the patent invalid as granted but upheld it as amended, and found infringement of the amended patent. The operative part of that decision ordered the defendants to bear 100% of Edwards' costs in the infringement action and 75% of Edwards' costs in the revocation counterclaim proceedings. The defendants requested rectification to add an obligation on Edwards to bear 25% of the defendants' costs in the revocation proceedings. The rectification request is the subject of this order.
• 2025-08-25ORD_35448/2025Hamburg LDProcedural onlyThe Hamburg Local Division ruled that authority to represent a defendant in provisional measures proceedings does not automatically extend to receiving service of a statement of claim in subsequent infringement proceedings, and that service on non-EU defendants must follow Rule 274 RoP.
• 2025-03-03UPC_CFI_492/2024Copenhagen LDProcedural onlyOrder by the Copenhagen Local Division in preservation of evidence proceedings. The court ruled that the supplementary IT expert report from the evidence preservation procedure may be disclosed to the parties' representatives under confidentiality obligations. The court declined to impose penalty payments at that stage. Costs deferred to main proceedings.
• 2025-02-27UPC_APP_7494/2025Nordic-Baltic RDSettledThe Nordic-Baltic Regional Division declared provisional measures proceedings between Fapa Vital AG and Valentis Baltic UAB concerning EP1978949 closed following the applicant's withdrawal after a settlement, ordered 60% reimbursement of court fees under R.370.9(b)(i) RoP, and declined to issue a cost decision as agreed by the parties.
• 2025-02-17UPC_CFI_527/2024Nordic-Baltic RDWithdrawnNordic-Baltic Regional Division declared the evidence preservation proceedings closed following Imbox Protection's withdrawal of its application after being convinced that the defendants do not infringe EP 2 276 862. As the unsuccessful party, Imbox was ordered to reimburse each defendant (Brunngård Group AB and Footbridge Group AB) SEK 225,000 in legal costs. The ceiling for recoverable costs applies as a joint ceiling regardless of number of defendants.
• 2025-01-21UPC_APP_33375/2024Nordic-Baltic RDDismissedNordic-Baltic Regional Division judge-rapporteur closed proceedings following withdrawal of seven public access applications (R. 262.1(b) RoP) by the applicant (an individual acting also on behalf of SWAT Medical AB) in Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v. Meril et al. proceedings. Meril Life Sciences PVT Limited's request for cost reimbursement (EUR 17,168.70) was rejected: Art. 69 UPCA does not apply to proceedings on public access requests because (i) the Enforcement Directive's cost principle does not extend to such requests, (ii) no ceiling for recoverable costs has been set for access proceedings, and (iii) parties to the main proceedings are merely consulted, not 'parties' in the access sub-proceedings.