| 2025-07-24 | UPC_CoA_614/2025 | Court of Appeal | Petition for review of Registrar's decision | motionName.registrar_review | Dismissed | The President of the Court of Appeal dismissed the petition for review of the Registrar's decision refusing to enter the anonymised applicant on the UPC representative list. The applicant held a certificate from Politecnico di Milano dated 1 March 2024, listed under Rule 12.1(a) EPLC Rules, but filed the registration application on 18 April 2025, after the 3 June 2024 deadline. The applicant argued the deadline applied only to acquisition of the qualification, not to registration, but the President rejected this interpretation. The transitional period was found not to violate equality and proportionality principles. |
| 2025-07-24 | UPC_CoA_521/2025 | Court of Appeal | Petition for review of Registrar's decision | motionName.registrar_review | Dismissed | The President of the Court of Appeal dismissed the petition for review of the Registrar's decision refusing to enter the anonymised applicant on the UPC representative list. The applicant held a certificate from Politecnico di Milano ('Certificato di superamento dell'esame conclusivo del Corso di Proprietà Industriale - Brevetti') dated 9 June 2023. This course was listed in Rule 12.1(a)(xii) EPLC Rules but required filing within one year of UPC Agreement entry into force (by 3 June 2024). The applicant filed on 27 March 2025. A clerical error in the applicant's paralegal department did not constitute sufficient justification for re-establishment of rights. |
| 2025-07-24 | UPC_CoA_347/2025 | Court of Appeal | Petition for review of Registrar's decision | motionName.registrar_review | Dismissed | The President of the Court of Appeal dismissed the petition for review of the Registrar's decision refusing to enter the anonymised applicant (Italian patent attorney) on the UPC representative list. The applicant held a CEIPI diploma obtained 28 January 2022 (before CEIPI accreditation) and filed on 21 February 2025, after the 3 June 2024 deadline under Rule 12.1 EPLC Rules. Health-related circumstances (sick leave from April 2024 to January 2025 following an accident) did not justify re-establishment of rights, as the applicant had not demonstrated inability to file despite assistance being available. The one-year Rule 12.1 transitional period was found not to violate principles of equality and proportionality. |
| 2025-07-24 | UPC_CoA_300/2025 | Court of Appeal | Petition for review of Registrar's decision | motionName.registrar_review | Dismissed | The President of the Court of Appeal dismissed the petition for review of the Registrar's decision refusing to enter the anonymised applicant on the UPC representative list. The applicant held a CEIPI diploma on 'Patent litigation in Europe' obtained on 8 July 2022 (before CEIPI was accredited by the UPC Administrative Committee in November 2023), which qualified under Rule 12.1(a) EPLC Rules but required filing within one year of UPC Agreement entry into force (by 3 June 2024). The applicant filed on 15 November 2024, after the deadline. The President found no 'de facto continuity' between Rule 12 and Rule 1 EPLC Rules that would give the accreditation retroactive effect. |
| 2025-07-24 | UPC_CoA_24/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 265 | — | Settled | Decision of the Court of Appeal dated 24 July 2025 granting withdrawal of all proceedings in the appeal by HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY (HPDC) and the cross-appeal by LAMA FRANCE, following an out-of-court settlement. The underlying Paris Local Division decision of 13 November 2024 had found EP 2 089 230 invalid and EP 1 737 669 infringed by LAMA. Both parties withdrew their appeals and the proceedings were declared closed. A 60% reimbursement of court fees before the Court of Appeal was ordered for both parties. No cost decision was required as both parties agreed. |
| 2025-07-15 | UPC_CoA_2/2025 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | Court of Appeal order concerning VALINEA's application for review of an order to preserve evidence granted to TIRU at first instance. The CoA upheld the first-instance order, confirming that: the time taken to file the application for evidence preservation did not undermine urgency; the risk of unavailability of evidence was assessed by probability not certainty; and the applicant's duty of candour was not violated. The appeal by VALINEA was dismissed. |
| 2025-07-15 | UPC_CoA_2/2025 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | French-language signed version of the Court of Appeal order in VALINEA v. TIRU. Identical in substance to the English version: VALINEA's application for review of the evidence preservation order was dismissed; the first-instance order in favour of TIRU was upheld. |
| 2025-07-12 | APL_55849/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | Court of Appeal order (12 July 2025) in proceedings between Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy and Microsoft Corporation and others. Only digital signatures are present in the extracted text; the substantive content of this order cannot be determined from the available material. |
| 2025-07-12 | APL_19133/2025 | Court of Appeal | Request for a discretionary review (RoP 220.3) | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal issued a very short order in Microsoft v Suinno (UPC_CoA, R. 220.3 RoP discretionary review proceedings). The document contains only digital signatures and minimal content, indicating a short procedural decision. Based on the document's minimal text, this appears to be a formal procedural order closing or acknowledging the proceedings. |
| 2025-07-09 | APL_23095/2025 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal reversed the first-instance order and ordered JingAo Solar Co., Ltd. (a Chinese company) to provide €200,000 security for costs within one month, finding that the lack of EU/EEA recognition and enforcement guarantees for a cost award against a non-EU party is a relevant factor justifying security under the rules on security for costs. |
| 2025-07-09 | UPC_CoA_430/2025 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | — | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal ordered Chint New Energy Technology Co., Ltd. to provide security for costs of EUR 200,000 in an infringement appeal after finding that Chint, a Chinese company, failed to demonstrate sufficient financial means. The Court upheld an appeal against the Munich Local Division's partial refusal to order the other five defendants to provide security, confirming the original grant of security against Chint while declining to extend it to the other co-defendants. |
| 2025-07-03 | APL_8639/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application to leave to appeal a cost decision (RoP221) | Costs | Costs only | The Court of Appeal dismissed Tiroler Rohre GmbH's appeal against the first-instance costs decision following withdrawal of the infringement action, confirming the general applicability of R. 150 ff. RoP for cost assessment proceedings after withdrawal under R. 265 RoP. The court confirmed that cost assessment after action withdrawal follows the standard R. 150 ff. procedure and that the appeal review is marginal (limited to whether the awarded amount is unreasonable or contrary to Art. 69(1) UPCA). The costs award of EUR 84,033.76 to SSAB was upheld. |
| 2025-07-03 | UPC_CoA_221/2025 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | — | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal ruled on the number of US attorneys permitted to access confidential information in infringement proceedings by NST against Qualcomm. The court ordered that only one trusted US attorney (rather than multiple as NST requested) be granted access to confidential information, balancing NST's right to an effective remedy against Qualcomm's legitimate expectation of adequate confidentiality protection. |
| 2025-07-03 | UPC_CoA_153/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application to leave to appeal a cost decision (RoP221) | — | Costs only | The Court of Appeal dismissed Tiroler Rohre's appeal against the Munich Local Division's cost order following withdrawal of its application for provisional measures. The Court held that the ordinary cost rules (R. 150 et seq. RoP) apply to cost decisions following withdrawal under R. 265 RoP; no special rule applies requiring reference to the panel rather than the standing judge. The legal review on appeal is limited to a marginal review of whether costs awarded are reasonable and proportionate (Art. 69(1) UPCA). The judge-rapporteur's detailed cost assessment showed no such deviation. |
| 2025-06-26 | APL_36389/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | Dismissed | Court of Appeal (26 June 2025) rejected Ballinno's appeal against (1) the security for costs order of EUR 56,000, and (2) the CFI's cost order. As Ballinno had withdrawn its requests for provisional measures on appeal, the action was declared devoid of purpose and disposed of under R. 360 RoP. Ballinno was ordered to bear the Kinexon companies' and UEFA's legal costs for the appeal proceedings. Value of dispute set at EUR 100,000. |
| 2025-06-23 | APL_14947/2025 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Dismissed | Court of Appeal (Panel with President Grabinski) dismissed Sumi Agro Limited and Sumi Agro Europe Limited's appeal against a Munich Local Division order that had refused to revoke provisional measures granted to Syngenta Limited concerning EP 2 152 073 (a crop protection patent). The appeal concerned the timing of payment of court fees: the Court of Appeal held that fees are considered paid on time when a bank transfer order is given at the time of filing, not when the bank account actually receives the funds. On the merits, the court confirmed the first-instance cost decision. Sumi Agro was ordered to bear the costs of the appeal. |
| 2025-06-20 | UPC_CoA_393/2025 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | — | Dismissed | The Court of Appeal allowed AorticLab's appeal and set aside the Munich Local Division's order granting Emboline's application for security for costs. The CoA held that Art. 69(4) UPCA provides no legal basis for a security for costs at the request of the claimant in an infringement action in response to a defendant's counterclaim for revocation. Allowing such security would unreasonably restrict the defendant's right to raise an invalidity defence by means of a mandatory counterclaim. |
| 2025-06-06 | UPC_CoA_618/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | — | Costs only | The Court of Appeal ruled on a late application for a costs determination (R. 151 RoP) filed by the Hanshow entities (appellants/applicants at first instance in a costs procedure) arising from failed provisional measures proceedings against SES-imagotag SA. The CoA held that the one-month deadline under R. 151.1 RoP begins from service of the provisional measures order (not the merits decision) when no merits proceedings are initiated, and that a missed deadline can only be remedied by re-establishment of rights (R. 320 RoP). A party that succeeds in costs proceedings must still bear its own costs attributable to those proceedings (except the court fee). |
| 2025-06-06 | UPC_CoA_618/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | — | Dismissed | Court of Appeal rejected Hanshow's appeal against a cost decision. The Court held that an application for a cost decision under R.151 RoP must be lodged within one month of service of the decision. This time period cannot be extended; failure can only be remedied through re-establishment of rights under R.320 RoP. Hanshow's late application for a cost decision was therefore time-barred. |
| 2025-06-04 | APL_13146/2025 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal ruled that when adjudicating on a request for imposition of periodic penalty payments pursuant to Rule 354.4 RoP, the composition of the court must be a panel and not a single judge. The impugned order issued by a single judge was set aside in that part. |
| 2025-06-02 | APL_8790/2025 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Dismissed | The Court of Appeal dismissed XSYS's appeal against rejection of a preliminary objection challenging the UPC's temporal competence in infringement proceedings brought by Esko-Graphics Imaging GmbH (UPC_CoA_156/2025). The Court established that the UPC has competence over acts of infringement occurring before the entry into force of the UPCA, as Art. 32 UPCA contains no temporal limitation. This does not violate the non-retroactivity principle under Art. 28 VCLT. During the transitional period, UPC and national courts have concurrent competence unless the patent is opted out. The Court also dismissed XSYS's request for a CJEU preliminary reference and for a stay of proceedings. In the case of an opt-out withdrawal, the UPC is competent also for acts occurring between the opt-out and withdrawal dates. |
| 2025-06-02 | APL_8790/2025 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Dismissed | Court of Appeal dismissed XSYS's appeal against the CFI's rejection of a preliminary objection based on alleged lack of UPC jurisdiction for acts predating the UPCA's entry into force. The CoA held that Art.32(1) UPCA has no temporal limitation and that the UPC has jurisdiction from the date of filing of the action, including for alleged infringements occurring before the UPCA came into force. A valid opt-out withdrawal brings the patent back under full UPC jurisdiction for all infringement periods. This is the German-language version of the decision. |
| 2025-05-30 | APL_68523/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal partially allowed Belkin's appeal and reduced the penalty payment (Zwangsgeld) imposed by the Munich Local Division for non-compliance with a disclosure order to EUR 42,000, while dismissing Philips's cross-appeal regarding disclosure in electronic form, and setting a new costs allocation. |
| 2025-05-30 | APL_68523/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Costs only | The Court of Appeal (Panel 2) ruled on Belkin's appeal and Philips' cross-appeal against the Munich Local Division's order on penalty payments for non-compliance with an information disclosure obligation following the infringement judgment in UPC_CFI_390/2023 (Philips v Belkin, EP patent not specified in excerpt). The CoA modified the first-instance order: a penalty payment of EUR 42,000 was imposed on Belkin for failing to comply with the information disclosure order. The court established key principles on time periods for information disclosure under Art. 67(1) UPCA, the punitive nature of penalty payments even after belated compliance, burden of proof, and the permissibility of paper format for information. Costs were shared proportionally as both parties were partially unsuccessful. |
| 2025-05-30 | UPC_CoA_845/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | — | Procedural only | Rectification order of the Court of Appeal correcting an obvious clerical error in the order of 30 May 2025 (Belkin v Philips, penalty payment proceedings). The phrase 'Local Division Düsseldorf' is replaced by 'Local Division Munich' throughout the operative part. |
| 2025-05-28 | UPC_CoA_239/2025 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | outcomeName.other | The Court of Appeal revoked the Munich Local Division's order refusing Centripetal's ex parte application to preserve evidence at Palo Alto's Munich branch office and referred the case back to the Local Division. The Court held that the standard of proof for preservation of evidence is lower than for a full infringement action; mere plausibility of infringement suffices. The Court found that Centripetal's digital evidence preservation request was plausible and that the risk of evidence destruction was established. The order was limited in scope to monitoring Palo Alto's Network Security Solution and digital documentation at the Munich premises. |
| 2025-05-26 | UPC_CoA_1/2025 | Court of Appeal | — | Procedural | Injunction denied | The Court of Appeal denied the application by Chainzone Technology (Foshan) Co., Ltd. (intervener/defendant) for suspensive effect of its appeal against the infringement order of the Vienna Local Division (15 January 2025) in proceedings between SWARCO FUTURIT and STRABAG. Chainzone failed to demonstrate manifest errors in the first-instance decision concerning EP 2 643 717 (a colour-mixing convergent optical system). The order confirming the injunction against STRABAG therefore remained enforceable. This is the German language version; an English translation exists (see finalorderuspensiveeffect EN.pdf). Note: the referenced case number in the parties section is UPC_CoA_70/2025 (Strabag appeal) and UPC_CoA_1/2025 (Chainzone appeal). |
| 2025-05-26 | UPC_CoA_1/2025 | Court of Appeal | — | Procedural | Injunction denied | The Court of Appeal denied the application by Chainzone Technology (Foshan) Co., Ltd. for suspensive effect of its appeal against the infringement order of the Vienna Local Division concerning EP 2 643 717 (colour-mixing convergent optical system / LED optics). Chainzone failed to demonstrate that the first-instance decision was manifestly erroneous. The enforcement of the injunction against STRABAG therefore continued. Key headnotes: application for suspensive effect must itself enable the respondent to prepare and the court to decide; suspensive effect requires manifest error in the impugned order; a company director is not an 'intermediary' under Art. 63 UPCA merely by reason of their directorship; security for enforcement under R.352.1 must be ordered at the time of the decision. This is the English translation of finalordersuspensiveeffect.DE_.pdf. |
| 2025-05-14 | UPC_CoA_424/2025 | Court of Appeal | Request for a discretionary review (RoP 220.3) | motionName.appeal_decision | Dismissed | The Court of Appeal (Standing Judge Patricia Rombach) dismissed Hisense, TCL, and LG's request for discretionary review (R. 220.3 RoP) and application for suspensive effect in the Corning v. Hisense/TCL/LG infringement proceedings (EP 3 296 274) before the Mannheim Local Division. The Court upheld the judge-rapporteur's refusal to separate proceedings for the competing defendant groups. Separation of proceedings is not required to protect confidential supply chain information; R. 262A RoP confidentiality orders offer an adequate alternative. The applications for suspensive effect were dismissed. |
| 2025-05-01 | APL_64374/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | PI granted | The Court of Appeal set aside the Milan Central Division's refusal of provisional measures and granted Insulet a pan-European preliminary injunction against EOFlow's insulin pump device ('EOPatch'/'GlucoMen Day Pump'), finding infringement of EP 4 201 327 and awarding costs to Insulet. |
| 2025-04-14 | APL_8326/2025 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal reversed the first-instance order and granted Stadapharm access to the statement of claim and annexes filed by Accord in a now-withdrawn declaration of non-infringement action against Novartis, finding that following withdrawal of the main proceedings all parties consented and no confidentiality concerns remained apart from personal data redactions. |
| 2025-04-11 | APL_9191/2025 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Dismissed | Court of Appeal dismissed TGI Sport/Supponor's appeal against two Munich Local Division orders allowing (1) amendment of AIM Sport Vision AG's statement of claim under R. 263 RoP (to add territories including Spain and UK, and add arguments on infringement by equivalence and as intermediaries) and (2) addition of TGI Sport Virtual Limited (UK entity) as a defendant under R. 305 RoP. The Court of Appeal held that the Local Division had properly exercised its discretion within acceptable boundaries. Explanation for why amendments were not in the original pleading must be in the application body but the precise wording can be in annexes. Spain's addition was justified by the anticipation of the CJEU changing the GAT v Luk case law. The stage of proceedings was not so advanced as to tip the balance against adding TGI UK. |
| 2025-03-28 | UPC_CoA_170/2025 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | — | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal (standing judge) issued a procedural order partially granting Phoenix Contact GmbH & Co. KG's request for an extension of the 15-day deadline to file its response to ILME GmbH's appeal against the Munich Local Division's rejection of ILME's preliminary objection (R. 19 RoP). The extension was granted for 10 days (instead of the requested three weeks), balancing efficiency with Phoenix's need to respond to complex arguments. |
| 2025-03-26 | APL_31428/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | Costs only | The Court of Appeal issued an order on costs distribution after a patent revocation action became moot because the patent holder surrendered the patent; the Court established that an exception to the loser-pays rule applies where the patent owner surrendered immediately at the outset of proceedings without prior provocation. |
| 2025-03-26 | UPC_CoA_290/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | — | Costs only | The Court of Appeal dismissed Stäubli's appeal against the Paris Central Division's cost order in a revocation action in which the patent holders surrendered their patent after proceedings commenced. The Court upheld an equitable exception to the general rule (Art. 69(1) UPCA) that the unsuccessful party bears costs: where a claimant files a revocation action without the patent holder giving cause, and the patent holder surrenders the patent immediately at the outset and concurrently files a revocation request with the EPO under Art. 105a EPC, the claimant may bear the costs. The Court applied equity because the patent holders had announced timely surrender and completed formalities only 8 days late without causing extra costs. |
| 2025-03-04 | APL_51115/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | PI granted | Order by the Court of Appeal (UPC_CoA_523/2024, 3 March 2025) dismissing Sumi Agro's appeal and upholding the preliminary injunction granted by the first instance in favour of Syngenta for EP 2 152 073 (crop protection). The CoA found the patent more likely than not valid and infringed, extended the injunction to Romania following its UPCA accession, reversed the first-instance costs decision and ordered Sumi Agro to bear all costs at first instance and on appeal. The CoA also held that a cost decision must be issued in inter partes PI proceedings. |
| 2025-03-03 | UPC_CoA_805/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Withdrawn | The Court of Appeal (Panel 1b: Grabinski, Gougé, Germano) permitted Curio Bioscience's withdrawal of its appeal (APL_65956/2024) against the Düsseldorf Local Division's order requiring Curio to provide security for costs of EUR 200,000 in the infringement action by 10x Genomics concerning EP 2 697 391. 10x Genomics did not object to the withdrawal. Proceedings declared closed; no cost decision needed. |
| 2025-02-24 | UPC_CoA_540/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | PI denied | Court of Appeal rejected Biolitec's appeal against the Düsseldorf Local Division's refusal to grant a preliminary injunction. The CoA upheld the first-instance order, finding that Biolitec had not demonstrated the necessity of provisional measures: proceedings on the merits could be awaited; the status quo on the market had existed for years before the patent was granted; and Biolitec failed to demonstrate sufficient evidence of urgency regarding stocking or tender-related harm. Biolitec was ordered to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings. |
| 2025-02-24 | UPC_CoA_540/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | PI denied | German-language signed version of the Court of Appeal order rejecting Biolitec's appeal in the provisional measures proceedings against Light Guide Optics and SIA LIGHTGUIDE International. Identical in substance to the English version: appeal rejected, Biolitec ordered to bear costs. The provisional injunction was denied because proceedings on the merits could be awaited and necessity was not demonstrated. |
| 2025-02-21 | UPC_CoA_618/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic Order | — | Costs only | The Court of Appeal addressed procedural issues regarding court fees for an appeal concerning a cost-fixing application, including a request for default judgment and a request for leave to appeal a cost decision under Rule 221 RoP. The order concerned the admissibility of a cost-fixing appeal following earlier proceedings in which the Munich Local Division had denied VusionGroup's preliminary injunction request and ordered costs. |
| 2025-02-19 | UPC_CoA_844/2024 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 265 | — | Withdrawn | Order from the Court of Appeal dated 19 February 2025 permitting Aarke AB to withdraw its appeal against the Düsseldorf Local Division's judgment (which had found infringement of EP 1 793 917 by Aarke and issued an injunction). The CoA found no legitimate interest of SodaStream in the appeal being decided, and permitted the withdrawal under R. 265.1 RoP. The appeal was declared closed and a cost decision was issued as required by R. 265.2(c) RoP. |
| 2025-02-19 | UPC_CoA_218/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | — | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal ordered the release of security deposits (totalling EUR 500,000) that NTS had provided for costs in three related cases, following withdrawal of the underlying infringement actions by NTS at the Munich Local Division. |
| 2025-02-14 | APL_39664/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | PI granted | Court of Appeal Panel 2 set aside the The Hague Local Division's refusal to grant provisional measures, and granted a preliminary injunction in favour of Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. against Sibio Technology Limited and Umedwings Netherlands B.V. concerning EP 3 831 283 (continuous glucose monitoring device). The Court found the patent valid (overcoming added matter and other validity challenges) and likely infringed by Sibionics' GS1 Device. A general injunction was ordered against all infringing acts in UPC Contracting Member States. Sibionics was also ordered to provide origin/distribution chain information and to deliver up infringing products. Penalty payments of EUR 10,000 per infringing product or EUR 100,000 per day were imposed. |
| 2025-02-12 | APL_58177/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | Court of Appeal Panel 1a order on the scope of confidentiality protection (R. 262A RoP) in proceedings by Daedalus Prime LLC (appellant/claimant) against Xiaomi entities, with MediaTek as intervener, concerning EP 2 792 100. The order addresses whether US attorneys (non-EU, non-UPCA Art. 48 representatives) may be granted full access to confidential information. The Court held that R. 262A.6 RoP does not require persons accessing confidential information to be employees or Art. 48 UPCA representatives; access depends on necessity and trustworthiness assessed case by case. |
| 2025-02-11 | UPC_CoA_563/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Dismissed | Court of Appeal rejected Suinno's appeal against a first-instance procedural order in the infringement action Suinno brought against Microsoft before the Paris Central Division. The appeal was rejected. |
| 2025-01-20 | UPC_CoA_835/2024 | Court of Appeal | Application RoP262A | — | Procedural only | Procedural order of the Court of Appeal dated 20 January 2025 on Amazon's R. 262A RoP application for confidentiality protection regarding Nokia's licensing and licence-agreement information disclosed in infringement proceedings (Nokia v. Amazon, UPC_CFI_399/2023). The CoA granted Amazon's request for confidentiality, ordering that certain grey-highlighted passages and 'strictly confidential' annexes regarding Nokia's licensee identities and licence agreement terms be restricted in access to designated persons only, beyond the CFI's existing classification. |
| 2025-01-16 | UPC_CoA_30/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | Court of Appeal dismissed REEL GmbH's preliminary objection to the jurisdiction of the UPC in a damages determination action brought by Fives ECL, SAS (UPC_CFI_274/2023). The CoA held that the UPC has jurisdiction under Art. 32(1)(a) and 32(1)(f) UPCA to determine damages following a national court judgment establishing infringement of EP 1 740 740. The separate action for damages is not limited to 'applications' under the Rules but constitutes an autonomous action; the court's competence also covers acts of infringement committed before the UPCA entry into force, provided the patent had not lapsed by 1 June 2023. |
| 2025-01-16 | UPC_CoA_30/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal (in German) set aside the Hamburg Local Division's order dismissing Fives ECL's standalone damages action and referred the case back to the Hamburg Local Division. The Court of Appeal held that the UPC has jurisdiction over a standalone action for assessment of damages where a national court has already found infringement and established the defendant's liability in principle, even for acts that pre-date the entry into force of the UPCA on 1 June 2023, provided the patent was still in force on that date. The Court confirmed that such actions fall within Art. 32(1) UPCA. |
| 2025-01-14 | APL_59329/2024 | Court of Appeal | Request for a discretionary review (RoP 220.3) | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal revoked the Mannheim Local Division's order on security for costs issued solely by the judge-rapporteur, finding that the judge-rapporteur was not competent to grant leave to appeal against such an order; the matter was referred back to the Court of First Instance for panel review. |
| 2025-01-10 | APL_54646/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal addressed whether the appeal had become devoid of purpose following the conclusion of related provisional measure proceedings before the Local Division Milan. The appeal was declared moot as the main proceedings at first instance had ended. |