| 2025-01-09 | APL_46747/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal dismissed Abbott Diabetes Care's appeal against a first-instance order on public access to the register (R. 262.1(b) RoP), confirming that a member of the public generally has an interest in accessing written pleadings and evidence after a decision concluding first-instance proceedings has been rendered, even if an appeal is pending. The court clarified the requirements for a 'reasoned request' for access and the balancing of interests under Art. 45 UPCA. |
| 2025-01-09 | UPC_CoA_611/2024 | Court of Appeal | Application For Costs | Costs | Costs only | Order of the Court of Appeal (Panel 2) granting DISH Technologies and Sling TV's application for reimbursement of court fees following their withdrawal of an appeal against a security-for-costs order (EUR 800,000) issued by the Mannheim Local Division. The parties had been misled by an erroneous legal remedy instruction in the first-instance order, which led them to file both a panel review request and a precautionary appeal. The Court of Appeal granted full reimbursement of the appeal fee (EUR 1,500) since the appeal was filed only as a precaution due to the incorrect instruction and was subsequently withdrawn promptly. |
| 2024-12-23 | APL_67135/2024 | Court of Appeal | Request for a discretionary review (RoP 220.3) | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal (standing judge) dismissed Microsoft Corporation's request for discretionary review (R. 220.3 RoP) of the Paris Central Division order granting Suinno leave to reduce its damages claim under R. 263 RoP (UPC_CFI_164/2024). The Court held that an unconditional application to reduce the amount of damages claimed constitutes a proper application under R. 263.3 RoP, and that the value of the action and fee determination is the responsibility of the judge-rapporteur during the interim procedure. |
| 2024-12-23 | UPC_CoA_826/2024 | Court of Appeal | Application RoP262A | — | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal granted Microsoft's application for confidentiality protection (Rule 262A RoP) of Exhibit BP 01 (a confidential global licence and settlement offer from Suinno) filed in a discretionary review application. The exhibit was ordered not to be made available to the public. |
| 2024-12-20 | APL_40470/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | PI denied | The Court of Appeal dismissed Alexion's appeal against the Hamburg Local Division's refusal to grant provisional measures against Samsung Bioepis regarding patent EP 3167888. The Court addressed the interpretation of patent claims containing linguistic errors and the relevance of prosecution history. |
| 2024-12-20 | UPC_CoA_405/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | — | PI denied | The Court of Appeal dismissed Alexion's appeal against the first-instance refusal of provisional measures, upholding the finding that the patent claim could not be corrected by interpretation to remove alleged errors, and confirming that claim 2 of EP 3 167 888 was more likely than not insufficiently disclosed (Article 83 EPC). The provisional measures application was therefore denied. |
| 2024-12-19 | UPC_CoA_523/2024 | Court of Appeal | Procedural Order | Procedural | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal (Second Panel) ruled on admission of new evidence in the appeal by Sumi Agro against the Munich Local Division's provisional measures order in favour of Syngenta concerning EP 2 152 073. Exhibit SA17 (new pages from a publication already partly submitted at first instance) was disregarded as Sumi Agro failed to justify why these additional pages could not have been submitted earlier. Syngenta's Exhibits FF28-29 were also disregarded. However, Syngenta's Exhibits FF24-27 (concerning a possibly changed version of the contested Kagura product) were admitted, as they related to new evidence about a product modification. |
| 2024-12-17 | UPC_CoA_810/2024 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 223 | — | Dismissed | The Court of Appeal (standing judge) dismissed Curio Bioscience Inc.'s application for suspensive effect (R. 223.4 RoP) of a Düsseldorf Local Division order requiring Curio to provide security for costs of EUR 200,000 in favour of claimant 10x Genomics Inc. The standing judge held that Curio had not established 'extreme urgency' as required under R. 223 RoP, which is a condition for a standing-judge decision without hearing the respondent. |
| 2024-12-11 | UPC_CoA_719/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic Order | — | Procedural only | Court of Appeal order on Magna's application for suspensive effect of the preliminary injunction (UPC_CFI_347/2024) issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division. Magna argued the BMW 2 Series Gran Coupé (model F74) was omitted from the list of exempted models. The Court of Appeal denied suspensive effect, finding no obvious error in the CFI's rectification dismissal as Magna had not clearly introduced model F74/Gran Coupé as a distinct model during the injunction proceedings. |
| 2024-12-10 | UPC_CoA_470/2023 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | — | outcomeName.other | Order of the Court of Appeal dated 10 December 2024 setting aside the CFI order imposing penalty payments (Zwangsgelder) on NanoString for alleged violations of a preliminary injunction that had been previously revoked by the CoA. The CoA held that the revocation of a preliminary injunction under Art. 75(1) UPCA and R. 242.1 RoP is retroactive — the revoked order is treated as having never had legal effect. Consequently, any subsequent order imposing penalties based on the revoked injunction also lacks legal basis, even if it concerns alleged violations before the revocation. The CFI penalty order was set aside, 10x Genomics' applications were dismissed, 10x was ordered to bear all costs, and NanoString's payment made in compliance with the penalty order was to be reimbursed. |
| 2024-12-10 | UPC_CoA_470/2023 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | — | outcomeName.other | The Court of Appeal revoked the Munich Local Division's order imposing penalty payments on NanoString for breach of a provisional injunction regarding EP 4 108 782, and rejected 10x's requests. The Court held that the Court of Appeal's earlier revocation (26 February 2024) of the provisional injunction order of 19 September 2023 had retroactive effect, meaning that the order was void ab initio and therefore could not serve as a valid legal basis for any penalty order, even for alleged breaches prior to the revocation. 10x was ordered to bear the costs of both instances and to reimburse the amount paid by NanoString. |
| 2024-12-03 | APL_32012/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | PI denied | Court of Appeal lifted the preliminary injunction granted by Munich Local Division against SharkNinja for alleged infringement of Dyson's EP 2 043 492 (hand-held vacuum cleaner). The Court found on the balance of probabilities it was not more likely than not that the patent was infringed, noting that the principal mode of separation in the SharkNinja product is a filter, not cyclonic separation as claimed. Dyson ordered to bear SharkNinja's costs for both instances. |
| 2024-12-03 | UPC_CoA_297/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | — | PI denied | The Court of Appeal set aside the first-instance preliminary injunction granted against SharkNinja, holding that on a balance of probabilities it was not more likely than not that SharkNinja's product infringed claim 1 of Dyson's patent (EP not specified in excerpt). Dyson was ordered to bear SharkNinja's costs in both instances. |
| 2024-11-29 | UPC_CoA_548/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | Court of Appeal upheld the Düsseldorf Local Division's order requiring SodaStream Industries Ltd. (claimant/respondent) to provide security for costs in patent infringement proceedings (EP 1 793 917) against Aarke AB. The CoA affirmed the legal standard for security for costs: only the claimant's own financial position is relevant (not that of its group); a claimant's willingness to pay costs and the likely outcome of the case are irrelevant; enforcement being unduly burdensome suffices (need not be proven impossible). The appeal by Aarke was partly upheld in that the CFI applied criteria not in conformity with this standard, but the outcome (ordering SodaStream to provide security) was correct since SodaStream has sufficient financial means. |
| 2024-11-28 | UPC_CoA_490/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal addressed the appeal against a provisional measures order, ruling on the appellant's classification as a micro-enterprise or small enterprise for the purposes of court fee reductions. The matter concerned a default decision and the appellant's failure to demonstrate eligibility for the reduced fee rate. |
| 2024-11-27 | APL_59329/2024 | Court of Appeal | Request for a discretionary review (RoP 220.3) | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | Court of Appeal order on a request for discretionary review (R. 220.3 RoP) of a first-instance order requiring TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR to provide security for costs of EUR 600,000 (R. 158 RoP), in which leave to appeal had been refused. The Court of Appeal examined whether a judge-rapporteur acting alone has competence to issue a security-for-costs order under R. 158 RoP and to refuse leave to appeal, or whether the full panel is required. The order resulted in a further procedural step inviting party submissions on this competence question. |
| 2024-11-21 | APL_50205/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal addressed the conditions for staying infringement proceedings pending opposition proceedings before the EPO under Art. 33(10) UPCA and R.295(a) RoP. The Court held that a stay may be ordered where a rapid decision by the EPO Opposition Division can be expected, even if an appeal against that decision is likely. |
| 2024-11-21 | APL_44633/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | Decision by the Court of Appeal (UPC_CoA_456/2024, 21 November 2024) dismissing OrthoApnea's appeal against a first-instance order permitting the claimant to raise a doctrine-of-equivalents argument. The CoA held: not every new argument is an amendment of the case requiring leave under R. 263 RoP; raising the doctrine of equivalents does not change the nature or scope of the infringement dispute when the same patent and product remain at issue; admissibility of new arguments depends on circumstances and procedural fairness. |
| 2024-11-21 | APL_44633/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Dismissed | Court of Appeal declared the appeal against the primary first-instance order inadmissible and rejected the appeal against the review order. The CoA clarified the rules on amendment of a case versus new arguments: not every new argument constitutes an amendment of case requiring leave under R.263 RoP; the nature or scope of the dispute must change. The anonymised respondent's claims relating to admissibility of new arguments were assessed. The case involves a patent infringement action before a Dutch-language division. |
| 2024-11-12 | APL_596007/2023 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal ruled on the interpretation of the term 'action' in Article 83 UPCA regarding jurisdiction and withdrawal of opt-outs during the transitional period. The Court held that the sentence concerning national court actions in Art. 83(4) UPCA refers only to actions brought during the transitional regime. |
| 2024-10-15 | UPC_CoA_570/2024 | Court of Appeal | Request for a discretionary review (RoP 220.3) | — | Dismissed | Court of Appeal dismissed Microsoft's request for discretionary review (Rule 220.3 RoP) of the Paris Central Division's order refusing to declare Suinno's infringement action manifestly inadmissible under Rule 361 RoP on account of alleged lack of independence of Suinno's representative. The CoA held that the manifestly inadmissible threshold under Rule 361 RoP requires clear-cut cases without in-depth analysis, and that the CFI's refusal to find manifest inadmissibility was not an appropriate case for discretionary review. |
| 2024-10-09 | UPC_CoA_586/2024 | Court of Appeal | Request for a discretionary review (RoP 220.3) | — | Dismissed | Court of Appeal (Standing Judge) dismissed Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy's request for discretionary review (Rule 220.3 RoP) of the Paris Central Division's order for security for costs as inadmissible. The court held that Suinno had not first requested the Court of First Instance to grant leave to appeal, which is a prerequisite before seeking discretionary review under Rule 220.3 RoP. The fact that the CFI order failed to indicate the right to appeal under Rule 158.3 RoP did not change this: the omission could not be read as an implied grant of leave. |
| 2024-10-09 | UPC_CoA_584/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic Order | — | Dismissed | The Court of Appeal rejected EOFlow's request for expedition of the appeal (in an appeal concerning refusal to join two provisional measures cases against different defendants). The court found that EOFlow had failed to act with sufficient urgency and by filing its appeal and expedition request at an unnecessarily late stage had insufficiently taken into account the interests of Insulet, making it impossible to expedite the appeal without prejudicing Insulet's response time. |
| 2024-10-04 | UPC_CoA_2/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Costs only | Order from the Court of Appeal dated 4 October 2024 on costs following Meril's submission of an undertaking (Unterlassungs- und Verpflichtungserklärung) to Edwards Lifesciences, which resulted in dismissal of the preliminary injunction action. The CoA held that, where a defendant undertakes to comply with the claimant's requests after proceedings have commenced, the claimant is generally to be regarded as the prevailing party under Art. 69(1) UPCA, without any need to examine the merits at the time of the undertaking. The undertaking itself implies that the claimant's requests were satisfied. Accordingly, Meril was ordered to bear the costs of proceedings. |
| 2024-10-04 | UPC_CoA_2/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Costs only | The Court of Appeal dismissed Meril's appeal against the Munich Local Division's costs order following a cease-and-desist undertaking by Meril. The Court held that Edwards was the successful party because Meril's cease-and-desist undertaking fulfilled the substance of Edwards' requests after proceedings commenced. Where a defendant gives a cease-and-desist undertaking during proceedings, the claimant is generally the successful party for costs purposes, and there is no need to examine admissibility and merits at the time of the undertaking. |
| 2024-09-30 | APL_52763/2024 | Court of Appeal | Request for a discretionary review (RoP 220.3) | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal (single judge) denied Xiaomi's request for discretionary review of three first-instance orders concerning the extension of a time limit under R.29(d) RoP for filing a rejoinder in three parallel infringement proceedings brought by Panasonic before the Local Division Mannheim. |
| 2024-09-27 | UPC_CoA_217/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | — | Procedural only | Order of the Court of Appeal dated 27 September 2024 on Audi AG's request for rectification under R. 353 RoP of a prior CoA order (dated 17 September 2024) requiring Network System Technologies LLC (NST) to provide security for costs of EUR 100,000, EUR 100,000 and EUR 300,000 in three appeal proceedings. Audi requested that the rectified order also include the notification under R. 158.4 RoP that default judgment may follow if NST fails to provide the security within three weeks. The CoA granted this request, finding the omission of the R. 158.4 notification was an obvious slip, as that notification is mandatory. |
| 2024-09-25 | APL_21143/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | PI granted | The Court of Appeal upheld a first-instance preliminary injunction (including a seizure order) obtained by Ortovox against Mammut for alleged infringement of a patent relating to avalanche rescue devices, affirming the findings on urgency, infringement likelihood, and balance of interests. The appeal by Mammut was dismissed and provisional cost reimbursement was ordered in favour of Ortovox. |
| 2024-09-25 | UPC_CoA_182/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | — | Procedural only | Rectification order of the Court of Appeal correcting an obvious clerical error in the operative part of the appeal order of 25 September 2024 (Mammut v Ortovox). In item 3 of the original order, 'Antragsgegnerin' was incorrectly used instead of 'Ortovox'; the corrected wording orders Mammut to reimburse Ortovox further provisional costs of EUR 19,858.40. |
| 2024-09-25 | UPC_CoA_182/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | — | PI granted | The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal by Mammut Sports Group and confirmed the provisional measures order issued by the Court of First Instance (Local Division) in favour of Ortovox. The Court rejected Mammut's attempts to introduce new submissions and its counterclaim for revocation in the appeal proceedings. The Court confirmed the provisional measures (seizure order and publication), the threatened penalty payment, and the security ordered. The Court additionally ordered Mammut to reimburse Ortovox's further interim costs of EUR 19,858.40 and to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings. Key legal principles established include: discretion to consider submissions rightly rejected at first instance; urgency requirements under R.211.4 RoP; irreparable harm not being a necessary condition for provisional measures; and applicability of R.263 RoP to provisional measures proceedings. |
| 2024-09-24 | APL_32345/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal upheld the Düsseldorf Local Division's order refusing to require Panasonic to produce licence agreements for the FRAND defence raised by OPPO/OROPE, ruling that the request did not yet satisfy the requirements of necessity, relevance, and proportionality at the current stage of proceedings. |
| 2024-09-24 | APL_32347/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | Court of Appeal order on OPPO's appeal concerning requests for production of evidence (R. 190 RoP) to support a FRAND defence. The Court held that a defendant may invoke R. 190.1 RoP to request production of counter-evidence. The court must balance the defendant's interest in disclosure of documents useful to a FRAND defence against the other party's interest in protecting confidential information. The first-instance court has discretion, including as to timing in the proceedings. An application may not yet satisfy the requirements of necessity, relevance and proportionality at one stage but may do so at a later stage. |
| 2024-09-24 | APL_32347/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | Dismissed | Court of Appeal dismissed OPPO and OROPE's appeal against orders denying their requests for production of evidence (R.190 RoP) in FRAND proceedings. The Court held that the CFI acted within its margin of discretion in finding that production of Panasonic's settlement licence agreements did not meet criteria of necessity, relevance and proportionality at the current stage of proceedings. |
| 2024-09-24 | UPC_CoA_298/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | — | Procedural only | Order of the Court of Appeal (Panel 2) on appeals by Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications and OROPE Germany GmbH against the Mannheim Local Division's refusal to order document production (Rule 190 RoP) in FRAND-related patent proceedings by Panasonic. The Court of Appeal held: (1) a defendant may rely on Rule 190.1 to seek production of counter-evidence; (2) the court must balance the defendant's interest in evidence useful for a FRAND defence against the other party's and third parties' confidentiality interests; (3) the first-instance court has discretion under Rule 190, which may include sequencing considerations; (4) the assessment may depend on the procedural stage and may be premature at earlier stages. |
| 2024-09-18 | APL_38206/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal allowed Google's appeal and ordered the change of language of the proceedings from German to English, finding that Google's internal working language was English and that it was unduly disadvantaged by having to conduct proceedings in German, while Ona's managing director was proficient in both languages. |
| 2024-09-18 | APL_30169/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Dismissed | Decision of the Court of Appeal dismissing Volkswagen AG's appeal against the Munich Local Division's rejection of preliminary objections (Rule 19/Rule 361 RoP) and finding that the opt-out withdrawals for the patents in suit were validly filed by NST's representative under Rule 5.3(b)(i) RoP without requiring a separate power of attorney. The appeal also failed on the merits of the Rule 361 RoP requests concerning standing to sue and damages for past infringements. |
| 2024-09-18 | APL_38948/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | Court of Appeal order on Apple's appeal against refusal to change the language of proceedings from German to English in infringement proceedings brought by Ona Patents against Apple before the Düsseldorf Local Division. The Court of Appeal clarified that internal working language of parties and their ability to coordinate on technical issues are relevant factors when deciding a language change request on grounds of fairness (Art. 49(5) UPCA). Parallel national court proceedings between the parties are of less relevance to this analysis. |
| 2024-09-18 | UPC_CoA_264/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | — | Dismissed | The Court of Appeal dismissed Audi AG's appeal in six consolidated cases challenging the Munich Local Division's refusal to grant preliminary objections under Rule 361 RoP (action manifestly bound to fail) against NST's infringement actions. The court held that R.361 RoP is reserved for clear-cut cases and cannot require the claimant to pre-empt every possible line of defence in the statement of claim. The court also rejected Audi's arguments that opt-outs were invalidly withdrawn, finding the UPC has jurisdiction. |
| 2024-09-17 | APL_25922/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal set aside the Munich Local Division's orders refusing security for costs and ordered Network System Technologies LLC to provide security for costs to Volkswagen AG, finding that NST's financial position as a special-purpose patent enforcement entity created a legitimate concern that a cost order might not be recoverable. |
| 2024-09-17 | APL_25919/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | The UPC Court of Appeal set aside the Munich Local Division's orders denying security for costs and ordered Network System Technologies LLC to provide security to Audi AG in amounts of EUR 100,000 (two cases) and EUR 300,000 (one case), finding that the lower court applied too high a standard of proof and that NST's failure to disclose its financial situation warranted the order. |
| 2024-09-17 | APL_26889/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | Court of Appeal ordered the stay of UPC revocation proceedings (UPC_CFI_484/2023) in Mala Technologies Ltd. v Nokia Technology GmbH concerning EP 2 044 709 (German part only), pending the outcome of parallel German Federal Patent Court/BGH revocation proceedings initiated by Nokia Solutions. Applying Art. 30 Brussels I recast Regulation, the court found that the causes of action in both proceedings are almost identical, the parties closely related, and the German proceedings at a more advanced stage. Mala's request for stay was upheld, and Nokia Technology's auxiliary request to limit the stay to the German part was rejected as moot. |
| 2024-09-16 | APL_33746/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal dismissed ICPillar LLC's appeal against a first-instance order requiring security for costs (R. 158 RoP). The court upheld the finding that a bank guarantee from a US-licensed bank does not provide adequate security under R. 158 RoP, and that this requirement is substantively justified and does not constitute unlawful nationality discrimination. The court also confirmed its discretion to disregard late-filed evidence even absent objection from the other party (R. 222.2 RoP). |
| 2024-09-13 | UPC_APP_42538/2024 | Paris CD | Action against the decision of the EPO (RoP88) | motionName.appeal_epo | Procedural only | The Paris Central Division closed the proceedings after the EPO rectified the contested decision in response to Qualcomm's interlocutory revision application under Rule 88 RoP, without a reimbursement of fees as no special circumstances justified it. |
| 2024-09-06 | APL_47300/2024 | Court of Appeal | Request for a discretionary review (RoP 220.3) | motionName.appeal_decision | Dismissed | The Court of Appeal rejected Motorola's request for a discretionary review of a Munich Local Division order that had denied leave to change its claim, finding that Motorola had not demonstrated that review was necessary to ensure consistent application and interpretation of the Rules of Procedure. |
| 2024-09-05 | APL_12739/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Dismissed | Court of Appeal (5 September 2024) dismissed Advanced Bionics' appeal against the CFI's refusal to transfer their infringement case to the Central Division. The CoA confirmed that joinder under R. 340 RoP cannot result in transfer to a different chamber outside Art. 33 UPCA, and that Art. 33(5) UPCA does not allow transfer of an infringement action to the Central Division without the consent of both parties. |
| 2024-09-05 | APL_24598/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | Dismissed | Court of Appeal (5 September 2024) dismissed Advanced Bionics' appeal against the CFI's refusal to change the language of proceedings from German to English (the patent language). The CoA confirmed that the domicile of parties in a German-speaking country was a decisive factor against granting a language change, and clarified that Art. 49(5) UPCA does not require the language change request to be included in the statement of defence. |
| 2024-09-05 | UPC_CoA_207/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | — | Dismissed | The Court of Appeal dismissed Advanced Bionics' appeal against the President of the Court of First Instance's refusal to change the language of proceedings from English (language of the patent) to German in the infringement action before the Mannheim Local Division. The Court held that the parties' domicile in countries where the language chosen by the claimant is an official language is an important factor weighing against a language change. The application was not required to be included in the Statement of Defence (Art. 49(5) UPCA; R. 323.3 RoP). |
| 2024-09-05 | UPC_CoA_106/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | — | Dismissed | The Court of Appeal dismissed Advanced Bionics' appeal against the Mannheim Local Division's order refusing to refer the infringement action to the Central Division via a connection joinder (R. 340 RoP). The Court held that a connection joinder under R. 340 RoP cannot result in referral to another division beyond the possibilities provided in Art. 33 UPCA, and Art. 33 UPCA does not permit referral of an infringement action from a local division to the central division without the agreement of the parties. |
| 2024-09-03 | UPC_CoA_188/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | — | Procedural only | Order of the Court of Appeal dated 3 September 2024 on AYLO entities' appeal against the Mannheim Local Division's rejection of their preliminary objections in infringement proceedings brought by DISH Technologies and Sling TV regarding EP 2 479 956. The CoA dismissed AYLO's appeal and upheld the CFI's rulings on: (1) international jurisdiction of the UPC (Art. 7(2) Brussels I in conjunction with Art. 71b(1)) – jurisdiction exists if the patent has effect in at least one Contracting Member State and alleged internet-accessible services can cause damage there; (2) competence of the Mannheim Local Division; (3) rejection of the parallel national proceedings argument under Art. 30(2) Brussels I; and (4) confirmation that the list of preliminary objections under R. 19.1 RoP is exhaustive – abuse of process and manifest inadmissibility are not recognised as unwritten preliminary objections. |
| 2024-09-03 | UPC_CoA_188/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | — | Dismissed | The Court of Appeal dismissed AYLO's appeal against the Munich Local Division's rejection of AYLO's preliminary objection challenging UPC jurisdiction and competence. The Court of Appeal upheld UPC jurisdiction under Art. 7(2) Brussels I recast and Art. 71b(1) in conjunction with Art. 33(1)(a) UPCA, holding that jurisdiction exists where a European patent has effect in at least one Contracting Member State and alleged damage may occur there (including via internet access). The list of preliminary objections in R. 19.1 RoP is exhaustive; defences based on abusive procedural conduct and manifest lack of foundation are not admissible as preliminary objections. |