UPC_CFI_723/2025

AUTOMATED MANAGEMENT OF CLINICAL MODIFICATIONS TO TREATMENT PLANS USING THREE-DIMENSIONAL CONTROLS

Provisional measuresProvisional MeasuresDusseldorf LDApplication for provisional measures—

This case cites

Authorities cited within the decisions on file for this case.

Target	Legal point	Strength	Excerpt
220.1	jurisdiction	Binding	R. 220.1-3 RoP reads: 1. An appeal by a party adversely affected may be brought against
9.2	claim amendment	Binding	whether the judicial discretion awarded by R. 9.2 RoP justifies a purely formalistic approach
158	security for costs	Binding	R. 158.1 RoP Security for legal costs
220.1	urgency (PI)	Binding	The Applicant and the Defendants may bring an appeal against the present order within 15 days of service of this order (Art. 73(2)(a), 62 UPCA, R. 220.1(c), 224.2(b) RoP).
213.1	urgency (PI)	Binding	If proceedings on the merits are not started within a period not exceeding 31 calendar days or 20 working day whichever is longer from the time of service upon Defendant 2., the Court may order... (Art. 62(5), 60(8) UPCA, R. 213.1 RoP).

Target	Legal point	Strength	Excerpt
UPC_CFI_263/2023	claim amendment	Persuasive	most if not all decisions dismissing submissions for being late filed under R. 9.2 RoP were not made by way of an order but in the final decision itself (CD Paris, Decision of 29 July 2024, UPC_CFI_263/2023, para. 23 et seq.
UPC_CFI_373/2023	claim amendment	Persuasive	LD Düsseldorf, Decision of 31 October 2024, UPC_CFI_373/2023 – Sodastream v. Aarke, p. 22
UPC_CFI_315/2023	claim amendment	Persuasive	CD Paris, Decision of 5 November 2024, UPC_CFI_315/2023 – NJOY v. Juul Labs, p. 8 et seq.
UPC_CFI_74/2024	security for costs	Persuasive	the Defendants solely refer to the order of the Munich Local Division of 27 August 2024 (UPC_CFI_74/2024 (Hand Held Products v Scandit) p. 60).

Target	Legal point	Strength	Excerpt
UPC_CoA_431/2025	security for costs	Binding	In the order of 9 July 2025 (CoA_431/2025 APL_23095/2025, Chint v Jingao, para 10 and 11) the Court of Appeal has ruled that when exercising its discretion under Art. 69(4) UPCA and R.158 RoP
UPC_CoA_218/2024	security for costs	Binding	The burden of substantiation and proof of why an order for security for costs is appropriate in a particular case is on the party applying for security for costs (CoA 17 September 2024, UPC_CoA_218/2024 APL_25922/2024, Audi v NST).
UPC_CoA_548/2024	security for costs	Binding	the applicant shall not only provide evidence as to the foreign law applicable in the territory where the order is to be enforced, but also on its application (CoA 29 November 2024, UPC_CoA_548/2024 APL_52969/2024, Aarke v Sodastream).
UPC_CoA_534/2024	indirect infringement	Binding	The assessment by the Court of Appeal (UPC_CoA_534/2024, UPC_CoA_683/2024, UPC_CoA_19/2025, Decision of 3 October 2025, mn. 190, 198 and 199 – Belkin v Philips) of the liability of a managing director applies even more so to a (financial) holding company.

Target	Legal point	Strength	Excerpt
69	security for costs	Binding	the Court must determine, in the light of the facts and arguments brought forward by the parties, whether the financial position of the claimant gives rise to a legitimate and real concern... (exercising its discretion under Art. 69(4) UPCA and R.158 RoP)

Cited by

Subsequent UPC decisions citing this case.

Cited in	Date	Legal point	Strength	Excerpt
UPC_CoA_2/2026 Court of Appeal	Jan 6, 2026	jurisdiction	Background	Local Division Düsseldorf, 16 December 2025, issued in the application for provisional measures UPC_CFI_723/2025