| 2026-03-18 | UPC_CoA_930/2025 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Dismissed | The Court of Appeal dismissed EOFlow's appeal against the Milan Central Division's order denying EOFlow's request under R. 262.2 RoP to keep certain information confidential. The Court held that information disclosed to the opposing party without an order under R. 262A RoP or other restriction loses its character as a trade secret. A R. 262.2 RoP request does not automatically protect information from disclosure by the other party. Information relating to a settlement agreement was also no longer confidential because its substance had already been stated in the published court order. |
| 2026-03-16 | UPC_CoA_3/2026 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | Dismissed | The Court of Appeal dismissed Ecovacs' appeal against the Düsseldorf Local Division's refusal to grant an ex parte order for inspection and preservation of evidence (R. 197 RoP) regarding Roborock vacuum cleaners at the IFA 2025 exhibition. The Court held that Ecovacs had breached its duty of candour under R. 192.3 RoP by omitting and distorting material facts (including proportionality-relevant information) in its ex parte application, and that such omissions cannot be cured by later submissions. The appeal was therefore rejected and Ecovacs ordered to bear Roborock's appeal costs. |
| 2026-02-27 | UPC_CoA_884/2025 | Court of Appeal | Generic Order | Procedural | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal (judge-rapporteur Rian Kalden, Panel 2) rejected Sibio Technology Limited's request for further exchanges of written pleadings (R. 36 RoP) in the appeal against the Paris Central Division's decision dismissing the revocation action concerning EP 3 831 283 and maintaining the patent as granted. Abbott's auxiliary requests, already submitted and admitted at first instance, are part of the appeal proceedings without requiring re-filing. The written procedure is closed and the oral phase opened. |
| 2026-02-26 | UPC_CoA_34/2026 | Court of Appeal | Request for a discretionary review (RoP 220.3) | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal addressed EOFlow's request for discretionary review (R.220.3 RoP) of the Milan Central Division's order of 4 December 2025 imposing penalty payments of EUR 150,000 for non-compliance with the provisional measures order (UPC_CoA_768/2024). EOFlow had appealed the penalty order (UPC_CoA_930/2025), which was dismissed by the Court of Appeal on 4 February 2026. The request for discretionary review was addressed following the CFI's referral to the panel. The final order was not fully captured in the available extract. |
| 2026-02-24 | UPC_CoA_883/2025 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | motionName.appeal_decision | Dismissed | The Court of Appeal dismissed Suinno's application for rehearing (R. 245 RoP) of two earlier CoA decisions (order on security for costs and decision on default judgment). The Court found no fundamental procedural defect under Art. 81(1)(b) UPCA. Suinno failed to demonstrate that any procedural error was so serious as to constitute a fundamental defect, and the Court held that the right to be heard does not require exhaustive written responses to each argument. The applications for rehearing were therefore dismissed. |
| 2026-02-18 | UPC_CoA_19/2026 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 223 | Procedural | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal (Panel 2: Kalden, Rombach, Simonsson) rejected Guardant Health's application for suspensive effect regarding the Paris Local Division's interim award of costs of EUR 400,000 ordered against Guardant following the rejection of its application for provisional measures concerning EP 3 443 066 (one of four patents originally asserted). The court found no manifest error in the CFI's interim costs award and dismissed the application. Sophia's request to set a payment deadline was also considered. |
| 2026-01-29 | UPC_CoA_930/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application RoP262-2 | Procedural | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal ruled on EOFlow's confidentiality request (R.262.2 RoP) concerning information communicated pursuant to a Court order under Art. 67 UPCA and R.191 RoP (relating to EOFlow's business agreements with Menarini). The Court held that there is no implicit limitation on the use of information received under a court order to communicate information; a confidentiality request must be expressly filed. R.262A RoP applies at least mutatis mutandis. This appeal arises from the Milan Central Division's order of 4 December 2025 (UPC_CFI_1167/2025) imposing penalty payments of EUR 150,000 against EOFlow for non-compliance with the provisional measures order of 30 April 2025 (UPC_CoA_768/2024). |
| 2026-01-26 | UPC_CoA_917/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application RoP262-2 | Procedural | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal issued an order on Merz Pharmaceuticals' request under R. 262.2 RoP to keep certain information (including Exhibit 823) confidential in the Merz v. Viatris Santé proceedings. The Court reiterated that R. 262.2 RoP requests are addressed to future public access requests, not to the other party. Protection against the other party's use of confidential information requires a R. 262A RoP confidentiality order. The Court declined to issue a decision on the R. 262.2 request at this stage pending any public access application. |
| 2026-01-09 | UPC_CoA_328/2025 | Court of Appeal | Withdrawal (RoP265) | Withdrawal | Withdrawn | 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) | Withdrawal | Withdrawn | 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) | Withdrawal | Withdrawn | 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) | Withdrawal | Withdrawn | 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. |
| 2025-12-29 | UPC_CoA_71/2025 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | Revoked | 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. |
| 2025-12-23 | UPC_CoA_691/2025 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | Withdrawn | 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. |
| 2025-12-22 | UPC_CoA_886/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application RoP262.1 (b) | Procedural | Procedural only | 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. |
| 2025-12-19 | UPC_CoA_906/2025 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Dismissed | 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_APP_35643/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application RoP262.1 (b) | Procedural | Dismissed | 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. |
| 2025-11-27 | UPC_CoA_70/2025 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | Withdrawn | Court of Appeal accepted withdrawal of STRABAG's appeal (UPC_CoA_70/2025) following an out-of-court settlement between STRABAG and SWARCO. The intervenor Chainzone's separate appeal (PC_CoA_001/2025) was declared moot under R.360 RoP, as an intervenor cannot continue an appeal that the supported party has withdrawn. Chainzone bears its own costs. |
| 2025-11-05 | UPC_CoA_762/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | Revoked | Court of Appeal decision (English) – duplicate/related filing to UPC_CoA_773/2024. Same substantive outcome: Seoul Viosys's LED patent claims 1, 4, 5, 6, and 9 revoked for added matter; all infringement claims dismissed; Viosys ordered to bear costs of both instances. |
| 2025-11-05 | UPC_CoA_762/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | Revoked | German-language version of the Court of Appeal decision (UPC_CoA_762/2024 and 773/2024) in Seoul Viosys v expert. Claims 1, 4, 5, 6 and 9 of the LED patent revoked for added matter. All infringement claims dismissed. Viosys ordered to bear all costs for both instances. |
| 2025-11-05 | UPC_CoA_773/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | Revoked | Court of Appeal decision (English) on the appeal in the counterclaim for revocation and the related infringement action concerning Seoul Viosys's EP (LED patent, EP 698). The CoA found added matter in claim 1 of the patent (content extended beyond the earlier application as filed, particularly regarding embodiments with a single mesa). Claims 1, 4, 5, 6 and 9 revoked. Infringement action dismissed. Viosys ordered to pay expert's costs for both appeal and first instance proceedings. Key headnotes: court may raise added matter of its own motion; translation of international application governs content; patentee must demonstrate inaccuracy of its own translation. |
| 2025-10-14 | UPC_CoA_699/2025 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | outcomeName.other | The Court of Appeal partly set aside a first-instance order on penalty payments in Fujifilm v Kodak. The court clarified the UPC penalty system under Rule 354.3 RoP, holding that a penalty order can be issued separately after the main decision. The court replaced the first-instance penalty orders with new orders: EUR 2,500/day from 23 July 2025 to 4 August 2025 and EUR 10,000/day thereafter for continued non-compliance by Kodak with orders on information, destruction, recall and removal from channels of commerce. |
| 2025-10-06 | UPC_CoA_288/2025 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Dismissed | The Court of Appeal dismissed Roku's appeal against the rejection of preliminary objections challenging the UPC's jurisdiction and competence in proceedings brought by Dolby International AB and Sun Patent Trust. The Court upheld that R. 19.1 RoP provides an exhaustive list of admissible grounds for preliminary objections; Art. 31 UPCA jurisdiction rules are compatible with EU law and do not encroach on CJEU jurisdiction; the Administrative Committee was empowered under Art. 87(2) UPCA to designate Milan as the replacement section for London; and a separate court fee is payable for each set of appeal proceedings. Roku's request for a single court fee covering multiple parallel appeals was also rejected. No costs were ordered as this order did not conclude the merits. |
| 2025-10-06 | UPC_CoA_288/2025 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Dismissed | The Court of Appeal (in German) dismissed Roku's appeals against the refusal of its preliminary objections in the infringement actions by Dolby International AB and Sun Patent Trust before the Munich Central Division. The Court held: (1) R. 19.1 RoP contains an exhaustive list of preliminary objection grounds, including jurisdiction; (2) Roku's Art. 47(2) Charter/Art. 6 ECHR arguments do not constitute a R. 19.1 ground; (3) the Administrative Committee had competence under Art. 87(2) UPCA to designate Milan as the replacement Central Division seat for London; (4) Court fees must be paid separately per appeal proceeding even where the same parties raise the same issues. Roku was ordered to bear Dolby's and Sun's costs. |
| 2025-10-03 | UPC_CoA_19/2025 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | Identical rectification order under R.353 VerfO correcting headnote 7 of the 3 October 2025 decision, corresponding to the Belkin counterclaim for revocation appeal (UPC_CoA_19/2025). Same substance as rectification in UPC_CoA_534/2024 and UPC_CoA_683/2024. |
| 2025-10-03 | UPC_CoA_683/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | Identical rectification order under R.353 VerfO correcting headnote 7 of the 3 October 2025 decision, corresponding to the Philips cross-appeal (UPC_CoA_683/2024). Same substance as rectification in UPC_CoA_534/2024 and UPC_CoA_19/2025. |
| 2025-10-03 | UPC_CoA_534/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | Infringed | Court of Appeal decision on patent infringement and counterclaim for invalidity. Belkin GmbH, Belkin International Inc. and Belkin Limited were found to infringe Philips' patent EP 2 867 997. The appeal court partially modified the first-instance judgment: it ordered Belkin (GmbH, International, Limited) to recall, permanently remove and destroy the infringing products; excluded acts by Belkin GmbH and Belkin Limited in Germany from the injunction; and set penalty payments of up to EUR 100,000 per day for breach of the cease-and-desist order. Philips' cross-appeal seeking electronic disclosure was rejected. Costs were split 50/50 between Belkin (three entities) and Philips for the infringement action; Belkin bore the invalidity counterclaim costs. The patent was maintained (revocation counterclaim dismissed). |
| 2025-10-03 | UPC_CoA_534/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal issued a rectification order under R.353 VerfO (Rules of Procedure), correcting an obvious error in headnote 7 of its decision of 3 October 2025 in the appeal concerning Philips v. Belkin (infringement action and counterclaim for revocation of EP 2 867 997). The corrected headnote 7 now reads that claimant requests for recall, removal from distribution channels, and destruction must generally specify a deadline for completion, which must already be set in the decision or final order. This is one of three identical rectification orders (also UPC_CoA_19/2025 and UPC_CoA_683/2024), corresponding to the three related appeals. |
| 2025-10-02 | UPC_CoA_764/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | Revoked | Second German-language version of the same Court of Appeal decision (UPC_CoA_764/2024 and 774/2024 – identical substantive outcome). Claims 1, 4, 5, 6 and 9 revoked for added matter; all infringement claims dismissed; Viosys ordered to bear all costs. |
| 2025-10-02 | UPC_CoA_774/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | Revoked | German-language version of the Court of Appeal decision in the Seoul Viosys v expert appeal (counterclaim for revocation and infringement action). Claims 1, 4, 5, 6 and 9 of the patent (LED device, EP 698) revoked for added matter in force for Austria, Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands and Sweden. All infringement claims dismissed. Viosys ordered to bear costs of both instances for both the revocation and the infringement action. |
| 2025-10-02 | UPC_CoA_774/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | Revoked | English-language version of the Court of Appeal decision (UPC_CoA_764/2024 and 774/2024): Claims 1, 4, 5, 6 and 9 of Seoul Viosys's LED patent revoked for added matter (single-mesa embodiment not clearly and unambiguously disclosed in the parent application). All infringement claims dismissed. Viosys ordered to bear expert's costs for both appeal and first instance, in both the revocation and infringement actions. |
| 2025-08-21 | UPC_APP_34793/2025 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal disregarded applications filed by Seoul Viosys after the oral hearing had closed, ruling that parties must refrain from further communications with the court after an oral hearing and there is no need to summarise oral argument in writing. |
| 2025-08-20 | APL_20125/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application to leave to appeal a cost decision (RoP221) | Costs | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal ruled on an application for leave to appeal a cost decision and on a preliminary reference request to the CJEU (Art. 267 TFEU), providing extensive guidance on when the UPC must refer questions of EU law, while rejecting expert klein's proposed preliminary reference questions as not requiring a referral. |
| 2025-08-15 | UPC_APP_34714/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 223 | Procedural | Procedural only | Court of Appeal refused Rivolution's application for suspensive effect of its appeal against Munich Local Division's preliminary injunction granted to Cilag and Ethicon for infringement of EP 2 515 768. The Court held that in the absence of the grounds for decision, manifest error can only be established if the operative part pronounces a legal consequence not derived from the UPCA or RoP. No such manifest error was found. |
| 2025-08-15 | UPC_CoA_737/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 223 | — | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal dismissed RiVOLUTiON's application for suspensive effect of its appeal against a preliminary injunction granted by the Munich Local Division in favour of Cilag GmbH International. The court found no manifest error in the first-instance order, noting that the grounds of the decision were not yet available and therefore the required threshold for manifest error could not be met. |
| 2025-08-13 | UPC_CoA_446/2025 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | — | PI granted | The Court of Appeal set aside the Lisbon Local Division's refusal to grant provisional measures and ordered a preliminary injunction against Zentiva Portugal prohibiting the making, offering, placing on the market or use of nintedanib products (Nintedanib Zentiva 100mg and 150mg soft capsules) for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis in 17 UPC Contracting Member States while EP 1 830 843 remains in force. The court held that completion of national HTA/pricing/reimbursement procedures constitutes imminent infringement. Zentiva was ordered to pay EUR 199,000 as an interim award of costs. The request for an information order was denied. |
| 2025-08-01 | UPC_APP_25317/2025 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | Court of Appeal (Second Panel) ruled on Strabag's and Chainzone's applications for confidentiality orders under R. 262A RoP in their appeal of the Swarco v. Strabag infringement decision from Vienna Local Division. The Court partly granted and partly rejected the applications, confirming that product characteristics not readily accessible to third parties constitute trade secrets, but rejected applications for information already submitted at first instance without a timely R. 262A request. |
| 2025-08-01 | UPC_CoA_70/2025 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | Court of Appeal ruled on confidentiality and access restriction requests in the STRABAG vs. SWARCO appeal proceedings. The Court clarified that access and use restrictions for information against a party and its representatives can only be ordered under R.262A RoP. A late application in appeal for restrictions on information filed in first-instance proceedings is inadmissible. The Court imposed confidentiality obligations on Swarco regarding Chainzone's product characteristics. |
| 2025-07-23 | UPC_APP_32598/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 265 | Procedural | Settled | Court of Appeal (Panel 2) permitted Visibly Inc.'s withdrawal of its appeal against a Hamburg Local Division security-for-costs order in infringement proceedings concerning EP 3 918 974, following an out-of-court settlement between the parties. Easee companies had become insolvent and their CFI proceedings had been stayed. The Court of Appeal declared the appeal proceedings closed, confirmed no cost decision was needed (both parties waived costs), and ordered 60% reimbursement of appeal fees to Visibly (written proceedings not yet concluded). |
| 2025-07-22 | ACT_31493/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application For Costs | Costs | Withdrawn | The Court of Appeal of the UPC permitted the withdrawal of a cost-assessment application (R. 151 RoP) filed by Philips at the Court of Appeal, which had been submitted in error. The correct forum for cost assessment was the Munich Local Division. No cost decision was required in the context of this withdrawal. |
| 2025-07-01 | ORD_31755/2025 | Court of Appeal | Generic Order | Procedural | Procedural only | Order from the Court of Appeal (UPC_CoA_542/2025 and UPC_CoA_526/2025) staying appeal proceedings concerning security for costs in full, following the insolvency of the Easee companies. Both Easee and Visibly had cross-appealed the Hamburg Local Division's order requiring EUR 75,000 security for the revocation action. The Court of Appeal stayed both appeals pursuant to R. 295m RoP due to insolvency proceedings regarding the Easee companies. |
| 2025-06-26 | APL_36389/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | Dismissed | Court of Appeal (26 June 2025) rejected Ballinno's appeal against (1) the security for costs order of EUR 56,000, and (2) the CFI's cost order. As Ballinno had withdrawn its requests for provisional measures on appeal, the action was declared devoid of purpose and disposed of under R. 360 RoP. Ballinno was ordered to bear the Kinexon companies' and UEFA's legal costs for the appeal proceedings. Value of dispute set at EUR 100,000. |
| 2025-06-26 | UPC_APP_28639/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 223 | Procedural | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal (Panel 2: Kalden, Rombach, Simonsson) granted suspensive effect to the managing director's appeal and provisionally granted suspensive effect to the Easee companies' appeal pending clarification of their representation authority (following insolvency), against the Hamburg Local Division's order requiring Easee to provide security for legal costs of EUR 75,000 for the revocation counterclaim proceedings. The court found the managing director's arguments on the impermissibility of security for costs for defendants in revocation proceedings raised an obvious legal error. |
| 2025-06-20 | UPC_CoA_393/2025 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | — | Dismissed | The Court of Appeal allowed AorticLab's appeal and set aside the Munich Local Division's order granting Emboline's application for security for costs. The CoA held that Art. 69(4) UPCA provides no legal basis for a security for costs at the request of the claimant in an infringement action in response to a defendant's counterclaim for revocation. Allowing such security would unreasonably restrict the defendant's right to raise an invalidity defence by means of a mandatory counterclaim. |
| 2025-06-19 | UPC_APP_8340/2025 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | motionName.appeal_decision | Dismissed | Court of Appeal Panel 2 rejected Alexion Pharmaceuticals' application for rehearing (R. 245 RoP) of the earlier Court of Appeal order dismissing Alexion's appeal against the Hamburg Local Division's denial of provisional measures. Alexion had alleged fundamental procedural defects (new claim interpretation standard applied without being heard, and incorrect facts). The Court held that no fundamental procedural defect within the meaning of Art. 81(1)(b) UPCA / R. 247(c) RoP was established. Alexion ordered to bear Samsung's costs of the rehearing proceedings. |
| 2025-06-17 | UPC_APP_27069/2025 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal declared inadmissible Knaus Tabbert AG's 'Gegenvorstellung' (objection to the rejection of its stay application under R. 223 RoP), holding that a mere challenge to the reasoning of the appellate order denying a suspensive effect does not constitute an admissible procedural remedy, and that new facts about third parties' financial situation that could have been raised at first instance are not admissible. |
| 2025-06-17 | UPC_APP_27069/2025 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | Procedural | Dismissed | The Court of Appeal (Panel 2) declared inadmissible Knaus Tabbert AG's 'Gegenvorstellung' (objection) filed against the Court of Appeal's earlier rejection of Knaus Tabbert's application for suspensive effect (R.223 RoP). The Court held that an objection which merely challenges the Court of Appeal's legal opinion expressed in the order rejecting a suspensive effect application is inadmissible. The infringement action by Yellow Sphere Innovations GmbH and Erwin Härtwich regarding EP 3 356 109 (vehicle frame with foam resin structural part) continues. |
| 2025-06-05 | UPC_APP_24411/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 365 | Procedural | Settled | The Court of Appeal confirmed a settlement agreement between Tandem Diabetes and Roche Diabetes, terminating the appeal proceedings. The settlement arose after the Central Division Paris had dismissed the revocation action and maintained EP 2 196 231 as granted. |
| 2025-06-04 | APL_13146/2025 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal ruled that when adjudicating on a request for imposition of periodic penalty payments pursuant to Rule 354.4 RoP, the composition of the court must be a panel and not a single judge. The impugned order issued by a single judge was set aside in that part. |
| 2025-05-30 | APL_68523/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal partially allowed Belkin's appeal and reduced the penalty payment (Zwangsgeld) imposed by the Munich Local Division for non-compliance with a disclosure order to EUR 42,000, while dismissing Philips's cross-appeal regarding disclosure in electronic form, and setting a new costs allocation. |