| 2026-03-26 | UPC_CFI_364/2025 | Paris CD | Counterclaim for infringement | Infringement merits | Settled | Decision of the Paris Central Division dated 26 March 2026 declaring the counterclaim for infringement (UPC_CFI_364/2025) closed following an out-of-court settlement between Belparts Group N.V. and IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland GmbH. This is the counterpart order to UPC_CFI_104/2025: the counterclaim for infringement by Belparts was withdrawn simultaneously with IMI's withdrawal of its revocation action following settlement. No cost decision was requested. |
| 2026-03-26 | UPC_CFI_104/2025 | Paris CD | Revocation Action | Revocation merits | Settled | Decision of the Paris Central Division dated 26 March 2026 declaring the revocation action (UPC_CFI_104/2025) and the counterclaim for infringement (UPC_CFI_364/2025) closed following an out-of-court settlement between IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland GmbH and Belparts Group N.V. IMI had commenced revocation proceedings in February 2025; Belparts had filed a counterclaim for infringement in April 2025. After the EPO Board of Appeal dismissed the appeal on 27 November 2025 and upheld the patent in amended form, the parties agreed to settle on 4 February 2026, requesting a stay. On 13 March 2026, Belparts withdrew the counterclaim for infringement and IMI withdrew the revocation action. No cost decision was requested. |
| 2026-01-26 | UPC_CFI_999/2025 | Paris CD | Revocation Action | Procedural | Procedural only | Order from the Paris Central Division (Panel 3) dated 26 January 2026 reviewing (under R. 333 RoP) the judge-rapporteur's earlier order on a preliminary objection (R. 19 RoP) in a revocation action brought by ALD France S.A.S. against Nanoval GmbH & Co. KG regarding EP 3 083 107 B1. The panel upheld the judge-rapporteur's ruling that ALD France S.A.S. has a sufficient independent interest to bring the revocation action notwithstanding that ALD Vacuum Technologies GmbH (an affiliated entity) had already filed a counterclaim for revocation in parallel infringement proceedings. The panel held: (1) ALD France and ALD Vacuum are not 'the same party' under Art. 33(4) UPCA merely because they are parent/subsidiary; (2) independent business activity is the relevant criterion; (3) competition law principles on economic units do not transfer. |
| 2026-01-23 | UPC_CFI_808/2025 | Paris LD | Application for provisional measures | Preliminary injunction | PI denied | The Paris Local Division rejected Guardant Health's application for provisional measures under three patents (EP 3 591 073, EP 3 443 066, EP 3 766 986) against Sophia Genetics. The court found issues of added matter in the divisional patent and insufficient evidence to demonstrate infringement with the required degree of certainty. Guardant Health's request regarding a fourth patent (EP 3 470 533) was withdrawn during proceedings. Guardant Health ordered to pay Sophia Genetics EUR 400,000 as interim costs. |
| 2025-12-18 | UPC_CFI_104/2025 | Paris CD | Counterclaim for revocation | Procedural | Procedural only | The Central Division Paris issued a procedural order following the interim conference of 11 December 2025 in proceedings between IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland GmbH (revocation action) and Belparts Group N.V. (patent proprietor and counterclaim for infringement). The order addresses IMI's request for security for costs of EUR 500,000. The Court applied the test from the CoA decision in Chint v Jingao (July 2025): security requires a legitimate and real concern about recoverability of costs. As Belparts is seated in Belgium (EU member state), IMI had not demonstrated enforcement difficulties, and the security request appears to have been denied. The full dispositif was not captured in the available text extract. |
| 2025-12-09 | UPC_CFI_999/2025 | Paris CD | Revocation Action | Procedural | Procedural only | Paris Central Division rejected Nanoval's preliminary objection (R. 19 RoP) seeking dismissal of ALD France's revocation action. The Court held that ALD France S.A.S. and the ALD Vacuum Technologies GmbH (party in the Munich Local Division proceedings) are not the same party, so the revocation action before the Central Division is not inadmissible on grounds of party identity. |
| 2025-11-03 | UPC_CFI_104/2025 | Paris CD | Revocation Action | Procedural | Procedural only | The Central Division Paris issued a procedural order under R. 340 RoP joining the counterclaim for revocation from the Munich Local Division to the pending revocation action before the Central Division Paris, to avoid contradictory decisions on EP 3 812 870. |
| 2025-10-01 | UPC_CFI_808/2025 | Paris LD | Application for provisional measures | Procedural | Procedural only | The Paris Local Division issued a scheduling order for the oral hearing in Guardant Health's preliminary injunction application against Sophia Genetics entities based on four patents (EP 3 766 986, EP 3 470 533, EP 3 443 066, EP 3 591 073) relating to genomic analysis, after defendants failed to appoint representatives within 15 days of service. |
| 2025-09-25 | UPC_CFI_323/2025 | Paris CD | Application Rop 365 | Procedural | Settled | The Central Division Paris (presiding judge Bessaud) homologated the settlement agreement between Scantrust SA and Advanced Track and Trace (ATT) in the revocation action concerning EP 2 364 485 (geometric code authentication method), recording the settlement as an enforceable court decision pursuant to R. 365 RoP. |
| 2025-09-25 | UPC_CFI_323/2025 | Paris CD | Generic Order | motionName.substantive_other | Settled | Duplicate of the Central Division Paris decision homologating the settlement between Scantrust and ATT in the EP 2 364 485 revocation proceedings (R. 365 RoP). |
| 2025-08-21 | UPC_APP_34189/2025 | Paris CD | Generic application | Procedural | Settled | Paris Central Division ordered the release of a EUR 25,000 security for procedural costs deposited by Ballinno B.V. (the defendant in a revocation action) to Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH (the claimant), following a settlement agreement between the parties. The main revocation action had been decided on 30 April 2025 (EP 1 944 067 revoked). The court applied Rule 352.2 RoP by analogy, noting the conclusion of the proceedings and the settlement. |
| 2025-07-31 | UPC_CFI_361/2023 | Paris CD | Generic Order | — | Withdrawn | Decision of Central Division Paris Seat allowing Toyota Motor Europe's withdrawal of its revocation action against Neo Wireless GmbH & Co. KG (EP 3 876 490) under R. 265 RoP. The proceedings had previously been stayed by agreement of the parties. Toyota's withdrawal was consented to by Neo Wireless. The court partially granted the reimbursement of court fees: 40% under R. 370.9(b)(iii) RoP (after closure of the interim procedure but before the oral hearing). |
| 2025-07-27 | ACT_6395/2025 | Paris CD | Application For Costs | Costs | Costs only | Central Division Paris issued a costs decision in Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v. Photon Wave Co., Ltd. following a preliminary objection in a revocation action. The court held: (1) a separate cost decision under R. 150 RoP is admissible after a preliminary objection that closes the proceedings before that division (jurisdiction declined and case transferred to Paris Local Division); (2) value of the revocation action set at EUR 500,000; (3) value of the preliminary objection proceedings set at one-quarter of the revocation action value (EUR 125,000); (4) expert costs for an opinion on Art. 33(4) UPCA interpretation were not reimbursable. Photon Wave bears 80% of Seoul Viosys's recoverable costs for the preliminary objection. |
| 2025-07-16 | UPC_CFI_484/2025 | Paris CD | Application RoP262A | — | Procedural only | Procedural order granting Kinexon's application for confidentiality protection (Rule 262A RoP) of litigation cost information contained in a cost decision application. The court held that litigation cost information qualifies as confidential information under Rule 262A and Article 58 UPCA. |
| 2025-06-30 | UPC_APP_26306/2025 | Paris CD | Application RoP262.1 (b) | Procedural | Procedural only | The Paris Central Division issued a procedural order on public access to the register under R.262.2(b) RoP in infringement proceedings concerning EP2661892 (Nokia v HP Printing). The court addressed whether written pleadings and evidence should be accessible to a third-party applicant (Bardehle Pagenberg) while balancing the integrity of pending proceedings. |
| 2025-06-30 | UPC_APP_19984/2025 | Paris CD | Application RoP262.1 (b) | Procedural | Procedural only | Paris Central Division procedural order on Acer's application for public access to written pleadings and evidence in revocation proceedings (HP Printing/Computing Solutions vs Nokia Technologies, EP 2 661 892). The court addressed the conditions under which third-party access to court documents may be excluded for reasons of integrity of other proceedings, and whether access once granted carries any confidentiality obligation. Leave to appeal granted. |
| 2025-06-30 | UPC_CFI_181/2024 | Paris CD | Application RoP262.1 (b) | — | Procedural only | Procedural order from the Paris Central Division (Seat) dated 30 June 2025 granting Acer Computer GmbH's application under R. 262.1(b) RoP for public access to written pleadings and evidence filed in proceedings concerning an application to amend patent EP 2 661 892 B1 (Nokia Technologies Oy vs HP Printing). The court found Acer had a specific interest in the validity of the patent given that Nokia had brought an infringement action against Acer based on the same patent. Access was granted without ongoing confidentiality obligations post-access. |
| 2025-06-30 | UPC_CFI_181/2024 | Paris CD | Application RoP262.1 (b) | — | Procedural only | Procedural order granting Bardehle Pagenberg Partnerschaft mbB (a third-party applicant) access to written pleadings and evidence filed in the proceedings, subject to a confidentiality obligation while proceedings are pending. The court held that public access may be granted before proceedings end and the court may impose conditions to protect the integrity of proceedings. |
| 2025-06-09 | ORD_27305/2025 | Paris CD | Generic Order | Procedural | Procedural only | Order of the Central Division (Paris Seat) on an application by Meissner Bolte law firm for access to written pleadings and evidence filed in revocation proceedings (ACT_571669/2023) between NJOY Netherlands B.V. and Juul Labs International, Inc. concerning EP 3 498 115. The Court granted the access request under Rule 262.1(b) RoP, finding that once first-instance proceedings have ended, the general public interest in understanding the decision outweighs confidentiality concerns. |
| 2025-05-28 | ACT_23310/2024 | Paris CD | Revocation Action | Revocation merits | Partially revoked | Paris Central Division (28 May 2025) revoked the German national part of EP 3 822 805 B1 on grounds of added matter (Art. 100(c) EPC), as the patent's claim 1 extended beyond the content of the parent application. All auxiliary requests (AR1–AR16) were either refused admission or failed to overcome the invalidity. Costs were awarded against the patent proprietor (DISH Technologies). |
| 2025-05-21 | UPC_CFI_230/2024 | Paris CD | Revocation Action | Procedural | Procedural only | The Central Division Paris issued a rectification order correcting a clerical error in the April 2025 decision that revoked EP 1 994 067 B1 in the Kinexon v Ballinno revocation action, correcting the patent number reference from EP 1 994 067 to EP 1 944 067. |
| 2025-02-28 | UPC_CFI_312/2023 | Paris CD | Revocation Action | Revocation merits | Patent amended | Decision on the revocation action by NJOY Netherlands B.V. against Juul Labs International Inc. concerning EP 3 504 989 (vaping/e-cigarette device). The court maintained the patent in amended form (Auxiliary Request 1, filed 22 July 2024) with effect for Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal and Sweden. The patent as granted was found invalid. Each party bears its own costs since both parties partially succeeded. |
| 2025-02-17 | UPC_APP_56087/2024 | Paris CD | Generic application | Costs | Dismissed | Request for security for legal costs (R. 158 RoP) by claimant AYLO PREMIUM LTD against defendant DISH Technologies L.L.C. rejected. The court found insufficient evidence that the defendant would be unable to pay litigation costs, noting that EchoStar had submitted a declaration to reimburse up to EUR 400,000. The parallel request regarding the patent amendment application was referred to a separate order. |
| 2025-01-17 | UPC_CFI_316/2023 | Paris CD | Revocation Action | — | Revoked | The Paris Central Division (Seat, Panel 1) revoked European patent EP 3 430 921 B1 in its entirety, with effect for Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal and Sweden. The claimant NJOY Netherlands B.V. succeeded in demonstrating that granted claim 1 lacked clarity/added matter, and the defendant Juul Labs International Inc.'s twelve auxiliary requests were all found unallowable. A thirteenth conditional auxiliary request (2d) was rejected as unreasonably numerous and unclear. Juul Labs was ordered to bear the costs of the proceedings. |
| 2024-11-05 | ACT_571669/2023 | Paris CD | Revocation Action | Revocation merits | Revoked | Paris Central Division (Section 1) revoked European Patent EP 3 498 115 B1 (Juul Labs - vaping device cartridge) in full, with effect for Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Latvia, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal and Sweden. The Court found the patent invalid for added matter (Art. 138(1)(c) / Art. 123(2) EPC). All of Juul Labs' auxiliary requests to amend the patent were rejected. Juul Labs ordered to bear costs. |
| 2024-10-14 | UPC_APP_46766/2024 | Paris CD | Generic application | Costs | Procedural only | The Paris Central Division ordered Ballinno to provide security for Kinexon's legal costs in the revocation action concerning EP 1 944 067 B1 (sports tracking), refusing an oral hearing on the security issue and scheduling the main oral hearing for 21 March 2025. |
| 2024-08-21 | UPC_APP_43845/2024 | Paris CD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | Application by defendant Ballinno to stay revocation proceedings pending outcome of appeal against denial of provisional measures was refused. The court held that an appeal against the denial of provisional measures does not generally justify a stay of revocation proceedings under Rule 295(m) RoP, and that proceedings must normally allow the final oral hearing at first instance within one year. |
| 2024-07-02 | UPC_APP_29031/2024 | Paris CD | Generic application | motionName.jurisdictional | Procedural only | Paris Central Division (Panel 1) procedural order on the admissibility of Nokia Technology GmbH's application to amend patent EP 2 044 709 B1 in the context of a revocation action brought against it by Mala Technologies Ltd. The claimant (Mala) argued the amendment application was inadmissible because Nokia had not initiated the separate CMS workflow within the required time. The order addresses the procedural timetable question and hearing invitation; no final ruling on validity or admissibility was reached in this document. |
| 2024-05-16 | UPC_CFI_372/2023 | Paris CD | Revocation Action | Procedural | Costs only | The Paris Central Division addressed allocation of costs following the patent proprietor's immediate surrender of EP 3 170 639 B1 in response to a revocation action, holding it is generally unfair to impose costs on a proprietor who immediately surrenders when confronted with new prior art, particularly where no prior warning notice was required. |
| 2024-05-10 | UPC_APP_23523/2024 | Paris CD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | Paris Central Division procedural order (judge-rapporteur Haedicke) in a revocation action by CEAD B.V. and CEAD USA B.V. against BEGO Medical GmbH concerning EP 2 681 034 B1, addressing a request by CEAD (as claimant in the Dutch-language revocation proceedings) for simultaneous interpretation into Dutch (alternatively English) at the interim hearing (29 May 2024) and oral hearing (23 August 2024). The court rejected the request for simultaneous interpretation under R. 109 VerfO, holding that the right to be heard is sufficiently protected where the party's authorised representative is fluent in the language of the proceedings (German). Simultaneous interpretation at the parties' own cost, however, was permitted. |
| 2024-05-02 | UPC_APP_8708/2024 | Paris CD | Preliminary objection | motionName.jurisdictional | Dismissed | Paris Central Division order rejecting Mala Technologies' preliminary objection to the jurisdiction of the UPC over Nokia's revocation action (ACT_595045/2023) concerning EP 2 044 709. Mala Technologies (defendant/patent proprietor) had argued the UPC lacked jurisdiction and sought a stay pending a German Federal Court of Justice decision (X ZR 6/24) in parallel revocation appeal proceedings. All requests were rejected: the preliminary objection was dismissed, the stay applications were denied, and the request to extend the deadline for the defence to revocation was also rejected. Leave to appeal was granted given the fundamental issues about the relationship between UPC proceedings and national courts. |
| 2024-04-25 | UPC_APP_18259/2024 | Paris CD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | The Paris Central Division judge-rapporteur issued a procedural order in the Toyota Motor Europe revocation action against Neo Wireless, denying Neo Wireless's request to stay the proceedings pending EPO opposition proceedings and appeal of a preliminary objection. The court held that pending EPO proceedings did not meet the 'rapid decision' threshold under Art. 33(10) UPCA, and that the preliminary objection appeal did not justify a stay. |
| 2024-04-24 | UPC_APP_587265/2023 | Paris CD | Application RoP262.1 (b) | Procedural | Procedural only | The Paris Central Division ruled on a third-party application by Nicoventures Trading for public access to court files under R.262.1(b) RoP in a revocation action concerning EP 3 430 921, applying guidelines from the Court of Appeal's decision on public register access. |
| 2023-09-13 | UPC_CFI_182/2023 | Vienna LD | Application for provisional measures | Preliminary injunction | PI denied | The Vienna Local Division denied CUP&CINO's application for provisional measures against ALPINA COFFEE SYSTEMS GmbH (EP 3 398 487 B1 — milk foam device), finding no patent infringement because the attacked product did not implement the claimed pipe section feature, and ordering CUP&CINO to pay EUR 25,600 in final costs. |