| 2026-03-25 | UPC_CoA_528/2024 | Court of Appeal | Withdrawal (RoP265) | Withdrawal | Withdrawn | Sanofi and Regeneron withdrew their application for rehearing (R.245 RoP) concerning the Court of Appeal's decision of 25 November 2025 (UPC_CoA_528/2024 and UPC_CoA_529/2024) which had rejected the revocation of EP 3 666 797 and set aside the Central Division Munich's first-instance decision. The application for withdrawal was permitted. The decision covers both UPC_CoA_528/2024 and UPC_CoA_529/2024. Court fees were to be reimbursed accordingly. |
| 2026-03-24 | UPC_CoA_44/2026 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 223 | Procedural | Procedural only | Order of the Court of Appeal (single judge) on an application for suspensive effect (Rule 223 RoP) filed by ALPINA Coffee Systems GmbH in its appeal against a Düsseldorf Local Division decision largely upholding CUP&CINO's infringement claim for EP 3 398 487 (milk frother). The Court of Appeal addressed the admissibility and merits of the suspensive effect application. The underlying first-instance decision had found infringement of EP 3 398 487 and rejected the revocation counterclaim. No final ruling on suspensive effect is visible from the excerpt; the order concerns procedural steps and assessment of the application. |
| 2026-03-24 | UPC_CoA_935/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 223 | Procedural | Procedural only | Court of Appeal dismissed the application for suspensive effect of an appeal against a default judgment of The Hague Local Division. The Court held that an application for suspensive effect must set out all reasons, facts, evidence and arguments at once; a second application is inadmissible unless new submissions could not reasonably have been made earlier. |
| 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. |
| 2026-03-16 | UPC_CoA_904/2025 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal (Panel 1a) dismissed VIVO's appeal against the Paris Local Division's order deferring the decision on the admissibility of claim A.II of the Statement of Claim to the main proceedings. The CoA confirmed that the panel (not only the judge-rapporteur) was competent to make the deferral decision, and that the Paris LD did not exceed its margin of discretion. The appeal also concerned UPC_CoA_905/2025 (EP 3 852 468). |
| 2026-03-13 | UPC_CoA_922/2025 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Dismissed | Order by the Court of Appeal (Panel 1d, 13 March 2026) partially reversing the Paris Local Division's order of 27 November 2025 on international jurisdiction. The CoA held that UPC jurisdiction based on Art. 7(2) Brussels Ibis (place of damage) is limited to UPC territory and does not extend to infringement in non-member states (Switzerland, Spain, UK, Ireland, Norway, Poland). The first-instance decision to assert jurisdiction over non-UPC territories was set aside because Keeex's Statement of claim lacked the necessary facts to justify Art. 71b(3) jurisdiction. The case concerns patent EP 2 949 070 and defendants Adobe, OpenAI, Truepic, Joint Development Foundation and others. |
| 2026-03-13 | UPC_CoA_922/2025 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Dismissed | French version of the Court of Appeal order of 13 March 2026 (UPC_CoA_922/2025 and related cases 923-925/2025). Same decision as the English version: partial reversal of Paris Local Division order on international jurisdiction; UPC jurisdiction under Art. 7(2) Brussels Ibis limited to UPC territory; non-UPC national parts of EP 2 949 070 (CH, ES, GB, IE, NO, PL) outside UPC jurisdiction absent sufficient Art. 71ter(3) pleading. |
| 2026-03-11 | UPC_CoA_934/2025 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | Settled | Court of Appeal accepted the withdrawal of the application for provisional measures following an out-of-court settlement between the parties. The Düsseldorf Local Division had previously granted provisional measures to Roche against Menarini entities. Following settlement, the proceedings were declared terminated. Each party bears its own costs. |
| 2026-03-10 | UPC_CoA_37/2026 | Court of Appeal | Request for a discretionary review (RoP 220.3) | motionName.appeal_decision | Dismissed | Court of Appeal (standing judge) dismissed Angelalign's request for discretionary review under R.220.3 RoP against a procedural order of the Düsseldorf Local Division extending a deadline in provisional measures proceedings. The CoA found that no manifest error was demonstrated: the Local Division did not exceed its discretionary powers, correctly applied R.9.3(a) RoP, and properly exercised its discretion in allowing a late reply based on human error. The requirements for discretionary review were not met. |
| 2026-03-06 | UPC_CoA_895/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 265 | Procedural | Settled | The Court of Appeal permitted Black Sheep Retail Products B.V.'s withdrawal of its appeal (UPC_CoA_895/2025 and UPC_CoA_896/2025) against the Local Division The Hague's decision of 10 October 2025 finding Black Sheep had infringed EP 2 432 351 and granting an injunction and corrective measures. The withdrawal was filed following settlement discussions, with HL Display's consent. The Court also granted Black Sheep's application for reimbursement of 60% of court fees under R. 370.9(b)(i) RoP. |
| 2026-03-06 | UPC_CoA_813/2025 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | PI granted | The Court of Appeal extended the provisional measures (preliminary injunction) granted against Dreame International, Teqphone GmbH, and Dreame Technology AB to cover Dyson's 'New Dreame Products' and 'Newest Dreame Products' (EP 3 119 235, vacuum cleaner patent). The Court held that: (1) a structural element in a claim must be interpreted considering both its function and physical configuration; (2) the fact that an infringer has previously committed only certain infringing acts does not restrict an injunction to those specific acts – the existence of past infringement establishes a risk of all acts of use; (3) the date for R. 213.1 RoP compliance was set at 31 calendar days after service. |
| 2026-03-06 | UPC_CoA_813/2025 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | Court of Appeal referred a question to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling on whether an 'authorised representative' under EU product safety regulations (Regulations 2023/988 and 2019/1020) can be enjoined as an 'intermediary' for patent infringement purposes under Art. 9(1)(a) of Directive 2004/48. The case arises from Dyson's appeal against Hamburg Local Division's refusal to grant provisional measures against Eurep GmbH, the EU authorised representative of Dreame International. |
| 2026-03-04 | UPC_CoA_678/2025 | Court of Appeal | Generic Order | Procedural | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal (judge-rapporteur Emmanuel Gougé) granted Hurom Co., Ltd.'s application for further exchanges of written pleadings (R. 36 RoP) in the appeal against the Paris Local Division's decision of 23 May 2025 dismissing Hurom's infringement claims and revoking several claims of EP 3 155 936. The CoA allowed further pleadings because Hurom had introduced two new auxiliary requests on appeal (not filed at first instance) and NUC had responded with new prior art documents (D5, D6) and invalidity arguments that Hurom had not yet had an opportunity to address. The principles of due process and the right to be heard justified the further exchange. |
| 2026-03-03 | UPC_CoA_887/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 265 | Procedural | Withdrawn | The Court of Appeal permitted Washtower's withdrawal of its application for provisional measures under R. 265 RoP and declared the proceedings closed. Washtower agreed to bear the costs of both first and second instance of the provisional measures proceedings. The Court also determined the value in dispute at 66% of the value of a permanent injunction, in accordance with the Court of Appeal's guidelines on cost ceilings for provisional measure proceedings not followed by a merits action. |
| 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. |
| 2026-02-18 | UPC_CoA_890/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application For Costs | Costs | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal set aside the Munich Local Division's orders requiring Syntorr LP to provide security for costs in infringement proceedings against Arthrex regarding EP 2 670 898. Identical reasoning to UPC_CoA_889/2025: ATE insurance with anti-avoidance endorsement sufficient; security for costs dismissed; bank guarantee ordered released. |
| 2026-02-18 | UPC_CoA_889/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application For Costs | Costs | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal set aside the Munich Local Division's orders requiring Syntorr LP to provide security for costs (EUR 2,000,000) in infringement proceedings against Arthrex. The court found that the existence of an after-the-event (ATE) litigation insurance policy with an anti-avoidance endorsement adequately addressed concerns about enforceability of a costs order, and therefore security for costs should not have been ordered. The bank guarantee provided by Syntorr was ordered to be released. |
| 2026-02-18 | UPC_CoA_744/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 265 | Procedural | Withdrawn | The Court of Appeal permitted Samsung Bioepis NL B.V.'s withdrawal of two applications for leave to appeal cost decisions (UPC_CoA_744/2025 and UPC_CoA_750/2025) in proceedings relating to provisional measures dismissed for lack of urgency before the Hamburg Local Division. Alexion consented to the withdrawal and waived any costs claim. The proceedings were declared closed with no costs order. |
| 2026-02-18 | UPC_CoA_528/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | Preliminary injunction | Dismissed | The Court of Appeal (Panel with Klaus Grabinski, Nathalie Sabotier, Peter Blok) rejected Sanofi and Regeneron's application for suspensive effect concerning the Court of Appeal's own decision of 25 November 2025 which had rejected the requests for revocation of EP 3 666 797. Sanofi and Regeneron sought suspensive effect as part of a petition for rehearing (R. 220.4 RoP). The court found no basis to suspend a revocation-rejection decision (as this had no practical effect on the patent's validity status), and rejected the claim that the CoA's reasoning on claim interpretation and inventive step was based on issues not argued by the parties. |
| 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. |
| 2026-02-17 | UPC_CoA_926/2025 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | Order of the Court of Appeal (Panel 1a) on TP-Link's appeal against Munich Local Division orders restricting public access to the register under Rule 262.1(b) RoP. TP-Link (a third party to the main Huawei v. Netgear infringement proceedings) sought access to certain pleadings and annexes filed in those proceedings after redaction of personal data. This is the German-language version of the order (see also the English-language version filed as item 12). The court addressed the scope of public access rights to UPC register documents and conditions under which access may be restricted. |
| 2026-02-17 | UPC_CoA_926/2025 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | English-language version of the Court of Appeal (Panel 1a) order on TP-Link's appeal against Munich Local Division orders restricting public access to the register under Rule 262.1(b) RoP. TP-Link sought access to certain pleadings and annexes submitted by Huawei and Netgear in the main infringement proceedings (UPC_CFI_168/2024 and UPC_CFI_152/2024) after redaction of personal data. The court addressed the scope of public access to UPC pleadings, the balancing of transparency against confidentiality interests, and the conditions under which third-party register access must be granted or may be restricted. |
| 2026-02-17 | UPC_CoA_302/2025 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | Infringed | Court of Appeal reversed the first instance decision, which had revoked the patent. The Court of Appeal upheld the patent's validity (rejecting the counterclaim for revocation), found patent infringement, and issued orders including a permanent injunction, recall, and destruction of infringing products. Provisional lump-sum damages of EUR 20,000 were awarded, with full damages to be determined in subsequent proceedings. (German-language version) |
| 2026-02-17 | UPC_CoA_302/2025 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | Infringed | Court of Appeal reversed the first instance decision, which had revoked the patent. The Court of Appeal upheld the patent's validity (rejecting the counterclaim for revocation), found patent infringement, and issued orders including a permanent injunction, recall, and destruction of infringing products. Provisional lump-sum damages of EUR 20,000 were awarded, with full damages to be determined in subsequent proceedings. (English-language version) |
| 2026-02-11 | UPC_CoA_4/2026 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | Court of Appeal ruled on the admissibility of Valeo's appeal against the CFI's order on a preliminary objection. The appeal was declared admissible under R.220.2 RoP. The CoA also rejected Bosch's alternative request for a stay of the first-instance proceedings pending the appeal, finding that no exceptional circumstances justified a stay. The admissibility ruling concerned the correct appeal route where the judge-rapporteur allowed a preliminary objection but did not terminate proceedings as to all defendants. |
| 2026-02-11 | UPC_CoA_4/2026 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | French-language signed version of the Court of Appeal admissibility ruling in Valeo v. Bosch. Identical in substance to the English version: Valeo's appeal against the CFI preliminary objection order declared admissible under R.220.2 RoP; Bosch's alternative request for a stay of first-instance proceedings rejected as no exceptional circumstances existed. |
| 2026-02-09 | UPC_CoA_8/2026 | Court of Appeal | Action against the decision of the EPO (RoP97) | motionName.appeal_epo | Dismissed | German-language decision of the Court of Appeal (Standing Judge Simonsson) dismissing Papst Licensing's appeal against the Paris Central Division decision (UPC_CFI_1771/2025). The CoA confirmed that Art. 3(1) of Regulation 1257/2012 cannot be interpreted to allow registration of unitary effect for a patent that does not designate all participating member states (Malta was not designated). Papst's requests for preliminary rulings to the CJEU were rejected as unnecessary. Each party bears its own costs per Art. 66(2) UPCA. |
| 2026-02-09 | UPC_CoA_8/2026 | Court of Appeal | Action against the decision of the EPO (RoP97) | motionName.appeal_epo | Dismissed | English-language decision of the Court of Appeal (Standing Judge Simonsson) dismissing Papst Licensing's appeal against the CFI decision (UPC_CFI_1771/2025) refusing to annul the EPO's rejection of Papst's application for unitary effect of EP 3 327 608. The headnote confirms that Art. 3(1) of Regulation 1257/2012 cannot be interpreted to allow unitary effect registration for a patent not designating all participating member states. CJEU reference refused. Each party bears its own costs. |
| 2026-02-04 | UPC_CoA_891/2025 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal ruled on the admissibility of Centripetal's amended requests in its appeal concerning an application for preserving evidence and inspecting premises at Palo Alto's Mannheim offices. The order addresses whether amended requests submitted on appeal are admissible and how the preservation/inspection procedure should proceed. The Court ordered the evidence preservation and inspection subject to specified conditions. Judges: Klaus Grabinski (President), Peter Blok (judge-rapporteur), Emanuela Germano, Eric Augarde, Torsten Duhme. |
| 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. |
| 2026-01-29 | UPC_CoA_931/2025 | Court of Appeal | Request for a discretionary review (RoP 220.3) | motionName.appeal_decision | Withdrawn | Court of Appeal declared the proceedings on Alpinestars' request for discretionary review closed after Alpinestars withdrew the request. Alpinestars was entitled to a 60% reimbursement of the court fees paid, as the withdrawal occurred within the written procedure phase. The underlying case involves a patent infringement and counterclaim for revocation before the Milan Local Division (Dainese v. Alpinestars). |
| 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. |
| 2026-01-26 | UPC_CoA_791/2025 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | Court of Appeal order on confidentiality protection (Rule 262A RoP) in Sun Patent Trust v. Vivo appeal proceedings. The court set principles for access to confidential information by employees of parties, holding that employee status alone is not sufficient to deny access, and that parties should generally be able to propose at least one employee for access to ensure effective representation. |
| 2026-01-26 | UPC_CoA_631/2025 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal issued a final order on the protection of confidential information (R. 262A RoP) in the Ericsson v. ASUS infringement proceedings. The Court established a confidentiality club granting access to: court representatives and their assistants, Ericsson's licensing expert Robert Mills (Berkeley Research Group), ASUS's licensing expert Philip Kline (EconEdge), and one natural person from each party. Persons with access to confidential licence agreement information may not participate in or advise upon patent licensing negotiations with the relevant counterparties for five years. |
| 2026-01-26 | UPC_CoA_631/2025 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal (Panel 1a) partially granted Ericsson's application for rectification (R. 353 RoP) of the Court of Appeal's order of 26 January 2026 on confidentiality club access under R. 262A RoP in the Ericsson v ASUS infringement proceedings concerning EP 2 727 342 and EP 3 076 673. Paragraph VI of the operative part was rectified to apply only to ASUS's designated employee (not Ericsson's), correcting an obvious slip. ASUS's auxiliary request was rejected. |
| 2026-01-21 | UPC_CoA_4/2026 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | Court of Appeal procedural order in the Valeo v. Bosch appeal concerning jurisdiction and language of proceedings. Paris Central Division had granted Bosch's preliminary objection, ordering transfer to Düsseldorf Local Division with English as language. Valeo appealed under R. 220.2 RoP requesting the Court of Appeal rule Paris Central Division has jurisdiction and French is the language. |
| 2026-01-16 | UPC_CoA_935/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 223 | Procedural | Dismissed | Court of Appeal dismissed the anonymised applicant's application for suspensive effect of its appeal against a default decision from The Hague Local Division (which had granted provisional measures and subsequently a default judgment in favour of Amycel). The CoA held that the applicant failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances, that the impugned decision was manifestly erroneous, or that the appeal would become devoid of purpose without suspensive effect. |
| 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. |
| 2026-01-06 | UPC_CoA_2/2026 | Court of Appeal | Request for a discretionary review (RoP 220.3) | motionName.appeal_decision | Dismissed | The standing judge of the Court of Appeal (Rian Kalden) dismissed Angelalign's request for discretionary review (R. 220.3 RoP) of the Düsseldorf Local Division's procedural order of 16 December 2025 (which had disregarded certain non-infringement arguments and an exhibit in the provisional measures proceedings concerning EP 4 346 690). The request was dismissed as Angelalign failed to provide sufficiently specific references to support its claim that the impugned order was 'manifestly erroneous'. |
| 2025-12-30 | UPC_CFI_1771/2025 | Paris CD | Action against the decision of the EPO (RoP97) | motionName.appeal_epo | Dismissed | Decision by the Paris Central Division (acting as administrative court under Rule 97 RoP) dismissing PAPST LICENSING's application to annul the EPO's decision rejecting its request for unitary effect for EP 3 327 608. The court upheld the EPO's refusal on the basis that the patent did not designate Malta (a participating member state at the time of grant), and unitary effect requires designation of all participating member states as per Art. 3(1) of Regulation 1257/2012. Key holdings: unitary effect tied to grant, not filing; territorial protection covers all participating states regardless of use; EPO's rejection was mandatory under Rule 7(2) DOEPS; proportionality and fundamental rights arguments rejected. |
| 2025-12-29 | UPC_CoA_936/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 223 | Procedural | Procedural only | The President of the Court of Appeal (Klaus Grabinski, Standing Judge) rejected Amazon's application for suspensive effect regarding the Mannheim Local Division's Anti-Suit Injunction (ASI) order of 22 December 2025, which confirmed an earlier order of 30 September 2025 prohibiting Amazon from pursuing or enforcing anti-suit injunctions against InterDigital's UPC patent enforcement actions. Amazon failed to demonstrate the order was 'manifestly erroneous', which is the threshold for suspensive effect under the UPC's case law. |