| 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. |
| 2025-12-24 | UPC_CoA_911/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application to leave to appeal a cost decision (RoP221) | Costs | Dismissed | The standing judge of the Court of Appeal (Emmanuel Gougé) dismissed Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy's application for leave to appeal the Paris Central Division's cost decision of 6 November 2025, which had ordered Suinno to pay EUR 350,000 in costs to Microsoft Corporation in connection with the infringement action UPC_CFI_164/2024 (EP 2 671 173). The CoA found the costs award reasonable and proportionate given the EUR 5,000,000 case value and EUR 600,000 ceiling, and that Suinno did not demonstrate that the first-instance court's assessment was wrong. |
| 2025-12-23 | UPC_CoA_691/2025 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | Withdrawn | The Court of Appeal permitted the joint withdrawal of Lindal Dispenser GmbH's appeal against the Paris Central Division decision maintaining EP 3 655 346 as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. |
| 2025-12-19 | 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_CoA_903/2025 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | A very short order signed by judges Nathalie Sabotier, Rian Kalden, and Ingeborg Simonsson on 19 December 2025, in the case UERAN Technology LLC v. Xiaomi group entities (partial overlap with UPC_CoA_902/2025). The text of the decision body is not captured in the excerpt; only the signatures are visible. This appears to be a procedural order in an appeal. |
| 2025-12-19 | UPC_CoA_902/2025 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | A very short order signed by judges Nathalie Sabotier, Rian Kalden, and Ingeborg Simonsson on 19 December 2025, in the case UERAN Technology LLC v. Xiaomi group entities. The text of the decision body is not captured in the excerpt; only the signatures are visible. This appears to be a procedural order in an appeal. |
| 2025-12-17 | UPC_CoA_926/2025 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | Procedural order of the Court of Appeal (Panel 1a) in the register-access appeal proceedings (Huawei v. TP-Link regarding access to UPC proceedings documents) on TP-Link's application for suspensive effect of the appeal under Rule 220.2 RoP, filed on 17 December 2025. The order addressed whether the Munich Local Division's orders of 28 November 2025 restricting register access should be stayed pending the appeal. This is a precursor procedural step to the substantive decision on register access issued on 17 February 2026. |
| 2025-12-09 | UPC_CoA_12/2025 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | — | outcomeName.other | Italian-language version of the Court of Appeal decision (same case as UPC_CoA_8/2025) on damages and costs in the Bhagat v Oerlikon appeal (EP 2 145 848). The CoA confirmed Bhagat's negligent infringement, rejected Oerlikon's reputational damage claims, and upheld the 80/20 cost split from the first-instance proceedings. |
| 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. |
| 2025-12-02 | 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. |
| 2025-12-01 | UPC_CoA_838/2025 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | Dismissed | The Court of Appeal dismissed Innovative Sonic's appeal against the refusal to change the language of proceedings back to German in the Munich Local Division infringement action against OPPO et al. The court held that the language of the parties (different from German) and the language qualifications of representatives were not sufficiently weighty to justify a second language change, and that English was already in use. |
| 2025-11-28 | UPC_CoA_376/2025 | Court of Appeal | Appeal 237 | motionName.appeal_decision | PI denied | The Court of Appeal set aside paragraph 3 of the Brussels Local Division's order of 21 March 2025, which had denied Barco's application for provisional measures against Yealink. The appeal concerned the competence of the Brussels Local Division and the proper handling of an application for provisional measures, including referral to the competent division (R. 19.5 RoP applied mutatis mutandis). The Court also addressed interim cost awards in provisional measures proceedings: Barco, as the unsuccessful applicant for provisional measures at first instance, was ordered to bear Yealink's costs. An interim costs award up to half the applicable ceiling was granted to Yealink on appeal. |
| 2025-11-27 | UPC_CoA_904/2025 | Court of Appeal | Generic Order | Procedural | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal (Panel 1a: Grabinski, Gougé, Blok) rejected VIVO's request for stay of the first-instance proceedings (UPC_CFI_362/2025 and UPC_CFI_361/2025) pending the appeal on the preliminary objection (R. 21.2 RoP) concerning EP 3 407 524 and EP 3 852 468. The court found no exceptional circumstances justifying a stay: the unresolved jurisdictional question did not constitute exceptional circumstances, and the costs of preparing VIVO's defence were insufficient. Sun Patent's interest in obtaining a timely decision outweighed VIVO's interest in avoiding preparation costs. |
| 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. |
| 2025-11-25 | UPC_CoA_529/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | Revoked | The Court of Appeal decided appeals in a revocation action and a counterclaim for revocation concerning PCSK9 antibody patents. Based on the reasoning visible in the excerpt, the Court found that the patent lacked inventive step because the skilled person at the priority date could not reasonably predict whether an antibody targeting secreted PCSK9 would result in a therapeutically effective treatment for hypercholesterolaemia; the prior art (Lagace, Horton, Cunningham) contained only conditional suggestions. The appeals concerned claim interpretation, added matter, sufficiency, and inventive step in the context of medical use-format claims. The operative decision is not fully visible in the excerpt but the substantive reasoning strongly indicates revocation. |
| 2025-11-25 | UPC_CoA_464/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | Patent maintained | The Court of Appeal dismissed the Meril companies' appeals against the revocation and counterclaim revocation decisions and Edwards' appeal against the infringement decision, upholding the patent EP 3 646 825 (heart valve). Key rulings: (I–VIII) All revocation and counterclaim appeals rejected; Meril bears 60% of Edwards' costs in the revocation proceedings and Edwards bears 40% of Meril's costs. (IX–X) The infringement decision was partially set aside: the injunction and preliminary damages order do not extend to XL devices (30.5mm and 32mm) that had not been scheduled for implantation in a patient by 15 November 2024. Preliminary damages reduced to not exceed €363,000 for Meril India and Meril Germany. The value of the proceedings is €8,000,000. |
| 2025-11-24 | UPC_CoA_911/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 223 | Procedural | Dismissed | Court of Appeal dismissed Suinno's application for suspensive effect of its appeal (related to costs decisions made against Suinno by the Paris Central Division following a default decision dismissing Suinno's infringement action against Microsoft). The CoA held that Suinno had not demonstrated exceptional circumstances nor that the impugned costs decisions were manifestly erroneous. |
| 2025-11-07 | UPC_CoA_900/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 223 | Procedural | Dismissed | Court of Appeal (judge-rapporteur) rejected Lepu Medical's application for suspensive effect of its appeal against a preliminary injunction granted by the Hamburg Local Division in favour of Occlutech. The CoA held that Lepu failed to demonstrate that the impugned order contained manifest errors or that the appeal would become devoid of purpose without suspensive effect. Lepu's claim that enforcing the injunction would damage its reputation was insufficient to outweigh Occlutech's interest in preventing imminent patent infringement. |
| 2025-11-07 | UPC_CoA_579/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application for provisional measures | Preliminary injunction | PI denied | Court of Appeal allowed OTEC's appeal and set aside the first-instance order granting provisional measures to STEROS. The CoA found the appeal successful and ordered that STEROS's application for provisional measures be rejected. STEROS was ordered to bear the costs of both the first-instance and appeal proceedings. |
| 2025-11-07 | UPC_CoA_579/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application for provisional measures | Procedural | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal (Panel 1a: Grabinski, Gougé, Blok, Meewisse, Schmidt) partially granted STEROS GPA Innovative S.L.'s application for rectification (R. 353 RoP) of the Court of Appeal's order of 7 November 2025 which had set aside the Hamburg Local Division's provisional measures grant and rejected the application for provisional measures concerning EP 4 249 647. The court corrected a clerical mistake in margin 45 (Table 1 changed to Table 10), but rejected STEROS' further argument that margin 43 contained an 'obvious slip' since the proposed change would affect the substance of the reasoning. |
| 2025-11-06 | UPC_CoA_897/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 223 | Procedural | Dismissed | The Court of Appeal dismissed Black Sheep Retail Products' application for suspensive effect of an appeal against the Hague Local Division's infringement decision (10 October 2025), which found EP 2 432 351 valid and infringed and ordered BSRP to disclose information to HL Display. The Court held that suspensive effect is the exception, not the rule, and that enforcement of information orders may only be suspended in exceptional circumstances. No such exceptional circumstances (manifest error, or appeal becoming devoid of purpose) were shown. BSRP failed to establish that providing the information would cause irreparable harm. |
| 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. |
| 2025-10-31 | UPC_CoA_755/2025 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | Procedural | Dismissed | Court of Appeal dismissed Vivo's request to stay the first-instance proceedings (UPC_CFI_361/2025 and UPC_CFI_263/2025) and extend time limits pending the appeal proceedings. The CoA held that R.21.2 RoP (stay in context of preliminary objection appeal) cannot be applied by anticipation before an appeal against the preliminary objection order has been lodged. Under R.295 RoP, the CoA is generally not the appropriate body to decide on stays of first-instance proceedings, as the CFI is better placed to manage its own case. |
| 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. |
| 2025-10-14 | 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. |
| 2025-10-01 | UPC_CoA_681/2025 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal dismissed Bruker's appeal against the Munich Local Division's court fee assessment for Bruker's application for the determination of compensation (quantum proceedings) against 10x Genomics. The Court held that a request to lay open books (R. 131.1(c); R. 141–144 RoP) forms part of quantum proceedings, and the party filing it must pay both the fixed fee and the value-based fee for determination of damages, regardless of whether it is combined with a liability request. Bruker's argument that requiring a fee violated the principle of legal certainty was rejected. |
| 2025-09-24 | UPC_CoA_887/2025 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | Court of Appeal (Judge-Rapporteur) granted Appellants' request for a two-week extension of the time limit for lodging their Statement of Grounds of Appeal, from 26 September 2025 to 10 October 2025, citing the exceptional circumstance that both lead attorney and lead patent attorney were unavailable due to professional constraints including an EPO oral hearing. |
| 2025-09-23 | UPC_CoA_755/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop313 | Procedural | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal (Panel 1a: Grabinski, Gougé, Blok) admitted Apple Inc. as an intervener in the appeal proceedings (UPC_CoA_755/2025 and UPC_CoA_757/2025) brought by Sun Patent Trust against VIVO concerning confidentiality protection orders under R. 262A RoP for EP 3 407 524 and EP 3 852 468. Apple was admitted because it is a party to the confidential licence agreements that VIVO's employees would have access to under the impugned orders, giving Apple a sufficient interest to intervene in support of Sun Patent Trust. Apple was given 15 days to file a Statement in intervention. |
| 2025-09-16 | UPC_CoA_796/2025 | Court of Appeal | Action against the decision of the EPO (RoP97) | motionName.appeal_epo | Dismissed | Court of Appeal dismissed Bodycap's appeal against the EPO's decision to reject the request for unitary effect. The CoA held that the application to annul the EPO's decision was groundless: the one-month period to correct deficiencies in a request for unitary effect (R.7(3) UPR) is non-extendable and expressly excluded from re-establishment of rights under R.22(6) UPR. Furthermore, interlocutory revision by the EPO (R.91 RoP) was excluded because the action under R.97 RoP constitutes an expedited action falling under the exception in R.85(2) RoP. |
| 2025-09-16 | UPC_CoA_796/2025 | Court of Appeal | Action against the decision of the EPO (RoP97) | motionName.appeal_epo | Dismissed | French-language signed version of the Court of Appeal's decision in Bodycap v. EPO. Identical in substance to the English version: Bodycap's appeal was dismissed as groundless. The EPO's rejection of the unitary effect request was upheld because the one-month correction period is non-extendable and re-establishment of rights is excluded by R.22(6) UPR. |
| 2025-09-02 | APL_35616/2025 | Court of Appeal | Request for a discretionary review (RoP 220.3) | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | Court of Appeal (standing judge Gougé) order on CeraCon GmbH's request for discretionary review (R. 220.3 RoP) of the Mannheim Local Division's refusal to grant leave to amend its counterclaim for revocation against Sunstar Engineering Inc. concerning EP 4 108 413. The Court held that leave to amend under R. 263.2 RoP must be refused if any one of the exclusion criteria in (a) or (b) is met — the disjunctive test. The request for discretionary review was therefore dealt with under this principle. No substantive patent validity ruling. |
| 2025-09-01 | UPC_CoA_805/2025 | Court of Appeal | Request for a discretionary review (RoP 220.3) | — | Dismissed | The Court of Appeal (standing judge) dismissed Centripetal Limited's request for discretionary review (R. 220.3 RoP) of the Mannheim Local Division's refusal to permit further written pleadings (R. 36 RoP) in its infringement action against Keysight Technologies concerning EP 3 821 580. The request for review was denied because the impugned order was not manifestly wrong. |
| 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. |
| 2025-08-20 | UPC_CoA_380/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application to leave to appeal a cost decision (RoP221) | — | Procedural only | Court of Appeal dismissed an application for leave to appeal against a cost decision (R.221 RoP) and refused requests to refer questions to the CJEU for preliminary rulings under Art. 267 TFEU. The Court clarified that while it must interpret its own law consistently with EU law, it cannot ask the CJEU to interpret the UPCA or the RoP directly. |
| 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. |
| 2025-08-06 | UPC_APP_32529/2025 | Milan CD | Action against the decision of the EPO (RoP97) | motionName.appeal_epo | Dismissed | Order of Central Division Milan Section (duty judge, in French) dismissing Bodycap, CNRS and Université de Rennes' appeal (under R. 97 RoP) against the EPO's rejection of their unitary effect request for EP 3 691 518. The EPO had correctly applied R. 6.2 and R. 7.3 of the Implementing Regulations for Unitary Protection (RPU): after the university reorganisation (Université de Rennes I dissolved and replaced by Université de Rennes), the new address had not been provided in the unitary effect application within the one-month non-extendable deadline under R. 7.3 RPU. Each party bears its own costs. |
| 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. |