| 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. |
| 2026-02-24 | UPC_CFI_735/2024 | Mannheim LD | Infringement Action | Infringement merits | outcomeName.other | The Mannheim Local Division issued a decision in TRUMPF Laser UK v. IPG Laser GmbH & Co. KG concerning EP 2 951 625 (optical apparatus for laser light), addressing infringement and a counterclaim for revocation; the outcome on infringement/validity requires additional pages not captured in the excerpt. |
| 2026-02-17 | UPC_CoA_937/2025 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal (judge-rapporteur Bart van den Broek) rejected the bioMérieux companies' request to stay the UPC revocation appeal proceedings pending EPO opposition proceedings concerning EP 3 756 767. The court found no exceptional circumstances justifying a stay, holding that UPC and EPO decisions on patent validity are not irreconcilable and that EPO developments can be factored into the appeal later. The court also rejected the request for extension of the deadline for the Statement of Grounds of Appeal, finding more efficient means (such as hearing appeals together under R. 220.5 RoP) available. |
| 2026-02-03 | UPC_CoA_8/2025 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | Procedural | Settled | Following the conclusion of appeal proceedings and a settlement agreement between Oerlikon Textile GmbH & Co KG and Bhagat Textile Engineers on payment of procedural costs (arising from the infringement judgment UPC_CFI_241/2023 and the appeal UPC_CoA_8/2025 decision of 9 December 2025), the Court of Appeal ordered the release and transfer to Oerlikon of the EUR 19,000 security deposit provided by Bhagat pursuant to the security for costs order of 30 October 2025. Bhagat consented to the transfer. |
| 2026-02-03 | UPC_CoA_8/2025 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | Procedural | Settled | Italian-language version of the Court of Appeal order (Emmanuel Gougé) ordering the release and transfer to Oerlikon of EUR 19,000 security deposit provided by Bhagat, following settlement of cost payment obligations in the infringement and appeal proceedings concerning EP 2 145 848. Identical substance to the English version. |
| 2025-12-09 | UPC_CoA_8/2025 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | outcomeName.other | Court of Appeal decision on damages and costs in appeal by Bhagat Textile Engineers against the first-instance infringement decision (EP 2 145 848). The CoA confirmed that Bhagat was at least negligent (Art. 68(1) UPCA) having exhibited the infringing product at ITMA 2023 without checking the patent landscape. Oerlikon's claims for moral/reputational prejudice were rejected as insufficiently substantiated. The CoA upheld the CFI's cost allocation (Bhagat to bear 80% of first-instance costs). The CoA determined the damages quantum. |
| 2025-12-05 | UPC_CFI_712/2025 | Dusseldorf LD | Application for provisional measures | Preliminary injunction | PI granted | The Düsseldorf Local Division granted a preliminary injunction to Roche against A. Menarini Diagnostics for infringement of EP 1 962 668 B1 (implantable glucose sensor), ordering a recall and seizure of infringing sensors in France, Italy, and Germany, with an order to disclose distribution information and payment of EUR 32,051 provisional costs. |
| 2025-12-02 | UPC_CoA_894/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 223 | Procedural | Procedural only | Order of the Court of Appeal single judge on Windhager Handelsgesellschaft's application for suspensive effect (Rule 223 RoP) of its appeal against the Mannheim Local Division judgment largely upholding bellissa HAAS GmbH's infringement action for EP 2 223 589 and rejecting Windhager's revocation counterclaim. Windhager alleged obvious errors in the first-instance assessment of direct infringement and the rejection of the revocation counterclaim. The order addressed the admissibility of the application (corrected after formality defects) and the substantive criteria for granting suspensive effect. |
| 2025-10-30 | UPC_CoA_8/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application For Costs | Costs | Costs only | The Court of Appeal (Panel 1b: Grabinski, Gougé, Germano, Checcacci, Wilhelm) ordered Bhagat Textile Engineers to provide security for costs of EUR 19,000 (50% of the applicable ceiling) within 10 days in the appeal against the Milan Local Division's infringement judgment concerning EP 2 145 848. The court rejected Oerlikon's request for security regarding first-instance costs already awarded (as those are a matter of enforcement). Security was justified by Bhagat's financial difficulties, the non-enforceability of UPC orders in India, and Bhagat's explicit acknowledgment that it cannot pay the first-instance costs. |
| 2025-10-30 | UPC_CoA_8/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application For Costs | Costs | Costs only | Italian-language version of the Court of Appeal order (Panel 1b) ordering Bhagat Textile Engineers to provide security for costs of EUR 19,000 in the appeal concerning EP 2 145 848. Identical substance to the English version: security ordered based on Bhagat's financial difficulties and non-enforceability of UPC orders in India. Request for security covering first-instance costs rejected. |
| 2025-10-01 | UPC_CFI_712/2025 | Dusseldorf LD | Application RoP262A | Procedural | Procedural only | The Düsseldorf Local Division (judge-rapporteur Dr. Schumacher) issued a confidentiality order under R. 262A RoP in the infringement proceedings brought by F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG and Roche Diabetes Care GmbH against A. Menarini Diagnostics entities concerning EP 1 962 668 B1 (glucose sensor). |
| 2025-07-21 | UPC_CFI_380/2023 | Nordic-Baltic RD | Infringement Action | — | outcomeName.other | Decision of the Nordic-Baltic Regional Division dated 21 July 2025 (anonymised) in Edwards Lifesciences Corporation's infringement action against Meril Life Sciences Pvt Limited and related entities regarding EP 3 769 722 (heart valve delivery system). The decision covers the infringement action and multiple counterclaims for revocation filed by Meril entities, as well as applications to amend the patent. The oral hearing was held on 16 January 2025, with further pleadings submitted after the hearing regarding parallel EPO opposition proceedings. The operative part of the decision is not included in the available excerpt; however given the case involves both infringement claims and revocation counterclaims with patent amendment applications, a substantive ruling on both infringement and validity is expected. |
| 2025-04-04 | UPC_CFI_501/2023 | Munich LD | Infringement Action | — | Infringed | Infringement action by Edwards Lifesciences Corporation against Meril GmbH, Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd, and Meril Italy S.r.l. concerning transcatheter heart valve (Myval THV) and EP 3 669 828. The court found infringement, dismissed the invalidity counterclaim (patent valid), and ordered: injunction, recall, seizure and destruction, disclosure of sales data, provisional damages of EUR 663,000, publication of decision in five media outlets. Decision immediately and directly enforceable from date of service. Key headnotes: jurisdiction for multiple defendants with commercial relationship; problem-solution approach for inventive step; cease-and-desist without penalty clause insufficient. |
| 2024-12-10 | ACT_582093/2023 | Nordic-Baltic RD | Infringement Action | Procedural | Procedural only | The Nordic-Baltic Regional Division issued a post-interim conference procedural order in Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v Meril Life Sciences and others (UPC_CFI_380/2023, EP 3 769 722 — a transcatheter heart valve patent). The order resolved multiple procedural disputes including: admissibility of additional invalidity attacks raised in the counterclaim for revocation; how to deal with the public interest defence; request for a CJEU preliminary reference (deferred); request for a Court expert (rejected); and practical arrangements for the oral hearing. |
| 2024-10-04 | UPC_CoA_2/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Costs only | Order from the Court of Appeal dated 4 October 2024 on costs following Meril's submission of an undertaking (Unterlassungs- und Verpflichtungserklärung) to Edwards Lifesciences, which resulted in dismissal of the preliminary injunction action. The CoA held that, where a defendant undertakes to comply with the claimant's requests after proceedings have commenced, the claimant is generally to be regarded as the prevailing party under Art. 69(1) UPCA, without any need to examine the merits at the time of the undertaking. The undertaking itself implies that the claimant's requests were satisfied. Accordingly, Meril was ordered to bear the costs of proceedings. |
| 2024-10-04 | UPC_CoA_2/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Costs only | The Court of Appeal dismissed Meril's appeal against the Munich Local Division's costs order following a cease-and-desist undertaking by Meril. The Court held that Edwards was the successful party because Meril's cease-and-desist undertaking fulfilled the substance of Edwards' requests after proceedings commenced. Where a defendant gives a cease-and-desist undertaking during proceedings, the claimant is generally the successful party for costs purposes, and there is no need to examine admissibility and merits at the time of the undertaking. |
| 2024-07-29 | UPC_CFI_501/2023 | Munich LD | Infringement Action | — | Procedural only | Munich Local Division issued a case management order fixing dates for the interim conference and oral hearing in this infringement action concerning heart valve technology, balancing the claimant's right to a hearing within one year of service with defendants' representative availability constraints. |
| 2024-07-19 | ACT_551308/2023 | Paris CD | Revocation Action | Revocation merits | Patent amended | The Paris Central Division rejected the revocation actions filed by Meril Italy Srl and Meril GmbH/Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd against EP 3 646 825, maintaining the patent in amended form as per auxiliary request II submitted during the proceedings; costs were split 60% (claimants/counterclaimants) and 40% (defendant). |
| 2024-07-19 | CC_585030/2023 | Paris CD | Counterclaim for revocation | Revocation merits | Patent amended | Decision of the Paris Central Division rejecting the revocation action by Meril Italy Srl and the counterclaims for revocation by Meril GmbH and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd against Edwards Lifesciences Corporation's EP 3 646 825 (prosthetic heart valve). The patent is maintained as amended in auxiliary request II, which limits claims to a frame made up entirely of hexagonal cells. The revocation claimants (60%) and defendant (40%) share costs. |
| 2024-07-19 | CC_584916/2023 | Paris CD | Counterclaim for revocation | Revocation merits | Patent amended | The Central Division (Paris) maintained Edwards Lifesciences' EP 3 646 825 (prosthetic heart valve) in amended form (Auxiliary Request II) following revocation actions and counterclaims by Meril entities. All invalidity grounds against the amended claims were rejected. |
| 2024-02-15 | UPC_CoA_2/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic Order | Costs | Procedural only | Procedural order from the Court of Appeal (UPC_CoA_2/2024) on the appeal fee issue in provisional measures proceedings. The appeal concerned a Munich Local Division order declaring the PI application moot after Meril gave an undertaking and cease and desist declaration. The order addressed cost allocation and whether the appeal fee was properly calculated. |
| 2024-02-15 | UPC_CoA_2/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic Order | Costs | Costs only | Procedural order of the Court of Appeal addressing the appeal fee in an appeal by Meril GmbH and Meril Life Sciences against a Munich Local Division order in provisional measures proceedings brought by Edwards Lifesciences Corporation regarding EP 3 763 331 (crimping device for heart valve prostheses). After Meril submitted a cease-and-desist undertaking, Edwards accepted it and the case was resolved without a ruling. The first-instance court ordered Meril to bear costs up to EUR 200,000 and set the action value at EUR 1,500,000. Meril appealed. The Court of Appeal order concerned procedural aspects of the appeal fee payment. |
| 2023-11-13 | UPC_CFI_255/2023 | Paris CD | Preliminary objection | motionName.jurisdictional | Procedural only | The Paris Central Division issued an order on a preliminary objection filed by Edwards Lifesciences Corporation challenging the competence of the Central Division to hear a revocation action by Meril Italy srl concerning EP 3 646 825, raising issues of same parties and Article 33(2) UPCA. |
| 2023-09-29 | UPC_CFI_15/2023 | Munich LD | Infringement Action | Procedural | Procedural only | The Munich Local Division issued a procedural order setting out requirements for using official CMS forms and workflows, and clarifying that a security for costs application under Rule 158.1 RoP requires demonstration that the opposing party's financial circumstances give reason to fear a cost order cannot be enforced. |
| 2023-08-23 | UPC_CFI_15/2023 | Munich LD | Infringement Action | Procedural | Procedural only | The Munich Local Division addressed Meril GmbH's request to align deadline for filing the preliminary objection with the deadline running for co-defendant Meril Life Sciences, granting a moderate extension while noting that alignment can also be achieved by shortening later deadlines. |
| 2023-08-10 | UPC_CFI_15/2023 | Munich LD | Infringement Action | Procedural | Procedural only | The Munich Local Division granted Meril GmbH's deadline extension request for filing a preliminary objection, allowing harmonisation of deadlines across co-defendants given service issues and CMS access problems encountered in the early days of the UPC. |