| 2026-03-26 | UPC_CFI_104/2025 | Paris CD | Revocation Action | Revocation merits | Settled | Decision of the Paris Central Division dated 26 March 2026 declaring the revocation action (UPC_CFI_104/2025) and the counterclaim for infringement (UPC_CFI_364/2025) closed following an out-of-court settlement between IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland GmbH and Belparts Group N.V. IMI had commenced revocation proceedings in February 2025; Belparts had filed a counterclaim for infringement in April 2025. After the EPO Board of Appeal dismissed the appeal on 27 November 2025 and upheld the patent in amended form, the parties agreed to settle on 4 February 2026, requesting a stay. On 13 March 2026, Belparts withdrew the counterclaim for infringement and IMI withdrew the revocation action. No cost decision was requested. |
| 2026-03-13 | UPC_CFI_927/2025 | Milan CD | Revocation Action | Procedural | Procedural only | The Milan Central Division (full panel: Postiglione, Klein, Alt) ordered La Siddhi Consultancy Ltd. to provide security for legal costs of EUR 112,000 in favour of the defendants (Athena Pharmaceutiques and Substipharm) in the revocation action concerning EP 3 592 333. The Court found that La Siddhi's financial situation (thin equity margin of approximately GBP 27,000) gave rise to a legitimate concern that any costs order would not be recoverable. La Siddhi's claim to SME status was found unsubstantiated. Security may be provided by bank deposit or EU-licensed bank guarantee within six weeks. |
| 2026-03-13 | UPC_CFI_722/2025 | Milan CD | Revocation Action | Revocation merits | outcomeName.other | The Milan Central Division ordered disposal of Neurocrine Biosciences' revocation action (R. 360 RoP) against EP 3 784 233 because the patent had been definitively and entirely revoked by the EPO Opposition Division, rendering the revocation action devoid of purpose. Neurocrine's conditional request (disposal only if Spruce undertook not to enforce divisional patents) was held outside R. 360 RoP. Spruce (claimant/respondent) was ordered to pay 80% of maximum recoverable costs (EUR 488,000) to Neurocrine; Neurocrine was reimbursed 60% of court fees (EUR 12,000). |
| 2026-02-24 | UPC_CFI_337/2025 | Munich CD | Revocation Action | Revocation merits | Patent maintained | The Central Division (Munich) dismissed TCL Europe's revocation action against Corning's EP 3 296 274 (glass composition), finding all invalidity attacks unsuccessful. The patent was maintained as granted; TCL was ordered to bear Corning's legal costs. |
| 2026-02-24 | UPC_CFI_829/2024 | Munich CD | Revocation Action | Revocation merits | Revoked | The Central Division (Munich) revoked EP 2 611 800 (sugar compositions) in its entirety for Austria, Finland, France, Germany, Netherlands and Sweden, finding the claims lacked inventive step and the application to amend was dismissed. The defendant bears UPM's costs. |
| 2026-01-26 | UPC_CFI_999/2025 | Paris CD | Revocation Action | Procedural | Procedural only | Order from the Paris Central Division (Panel 3) dated 26 January 2026 reviewing (under R. 333 RoP) the judge-rapporteur's earlier order on a preliminary objection (R. 19 RoP) in a revocation action brought by ALD France S.A.S. against Nanoval GmbH & Co. KG regarding EP 3 083 107 B1. The panel upheld the judge-rapporteur's ruling that ALD France S.A.S. has a sufficient independent interest to bring the revocation action notwithstanding that ALD Vacuum Technologies GmbH (an affiliated entity) had already filed a counterclaim for revocation in parallel infringement proceedings. The panel held: (1) ALD France and ALD Vacuum are not 'the same party' under Art. 33(4) UPCA merely because they are parent/subsidiary; (2) independent business activity is the relevant criterion; (3) competition law principles on economic units do not transfer. |
| 2026-01-15 | UPC_CFI_480/2025 | Milan CD | Revocation Action | Procedural | Procedural only | The Milan Central Division (full panel: Postiglione, Klein, Roselinger) rejected Fisher & Paykel's request to introduce auxiliary requests 2A to 13A as subsequent amendments to the patent (EP 4 185 356) in the revocation proceedings. The Court held that under R. 50.2 and R. 30.2 RoP, subsequent amendments are only allowed on an exceptional basis; the preclusive nature of the front-loaded system means that amendments must be made in full at the earliest stage. The efficiency of proceedings is not a sufficient reason to allow subsequent piecemeal amendments. |
| 2026-01-15 | UPC_CFI_480/2025 | Milan CD | Revocation Action | Procedural | Procedural only | Duplicate/version of the above order (same date and case) from the Milan Central Division rejecting Fisher & Paykel's request to introduce subsequent auxiliary requests 2A–13A for patent EP 4 185 356 in the revocation action brought by Fisher & Paykel against Flexicare. The reasoning and outcome are identical to the companion order. |
| 2026-01-12 | UPC_CFI_350/2025 | Paris CD | Revocation Action | Revocation merits | Partially revoked | Paris Central Division (Paris seat) issued a decision by default partially revoking European patent EP2728089 ('Sequenced chamber wave generator controller and method'). The court found Claim 1 invalid for lack of novelty (anticipated by prior art D1 combined with D3, i.e. obvious) within the scope of the UPC contracting member states in which the patent was in force. The patent was partially revoked as to Claim 1. American Wave Machines failed to participate. Costs borne by American Wave. The patent was not entirely revoked; the revocation was limited to Claim 1's territorial scope in UPC states. |
| 2026-01-07 | UPC_CFI_433/2024 | Paris CD | Counterclaim for revocation | Revocation merits | Revoked | Decision of the Paris Central Division (Panel 2) dated 7 January 2026 on Microsoft Corporation's counterclaim for revocation of EP 2 671 173 (mobile location-based search technology) owned by Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy. The court found the patent invalid for lack of inventive step over prior art documents BP07 and BP08. Auxiliary Requests I through further auxiliary requests were examined: Auxiliary Request I was found inadmissible or failed on added subject-matter; subsequent auxiliary requests lacked clarity or were inadmissible. The patent was thus revoked. The decision also addresses the requirements for admissible patent amendment applications under R. 30 RoP. |
| 2025-12-19 | UPC_CFI_681/2024 | Munich LD | Counterclaim for revocation | Revocation merits | Not infringed | The Munich Local Division dismissed both the infringement action (UPC_CFI_437/2024) brought by GXD-Bio Corporation and the counterclaim for revocation (UPC_CFI_681/2024) brought by the Myriad defendants, concerning EP 3 346 403 (a patent on data processing/gene expression analysis for identifying endogenous reference genes). The Court found no infringement because the accused products (Myriad test kits) did not use the claimed three-step normalization method — the products used a single-step average normalization that differed from the patented calculation method. The counterclaim for revocation was also dismissed, so the patent was maintained. Each party bears its own costs, with costs capped at EUR 600,000 total. |
| 2025-12-18 | UPC_CFI_104/2025 | Paris CD | Counterclaim for revocation | Procedural | Procedural only | The Central Division Paris issued a procedural order following the interim conference of 11 December 2025 in proceedings between IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland GmbH (revocation action) and Belparts Group N.V. (patent proprietor and counterclaim for infringement). The order addresses IMI's request for security for costs of EUR 500,000. The Court applied the test from the CoA decision in Chint v Jingao (July 2025): security requires a legitimate and real concern about recoverability of costs. As Belparts is seated in Belgium (EU member state), IMI had not demonstrated enforcement difficulties, and the security request appears to have been denied. The full dispositif was not captured in the available text extract. |
| 2025-12-09 | UPC_CFI_999/2025 | Paris CD | Revocation Action | Procedural | Procedural only | Paris Central Division rejected Nanoval's preliminary objection (R. 19 RoP) seeking dismissal of ALD France's revocation action. The Court held that ALD France S.A.S. and the ALD Vacuum Technologies GmbH (party in the Munich Local Division proceedings) are not the same party, so the revocation action before the Central Division is not inadmissible on grounds of party identity. |
| 2025-12-01 | UPC_CFI_337/2025 | Munich CD | Revocation Action | Procedural | Procedural only | The Central Division (Section Munich) judge-rapporteur issued a Rule 105.5 interim conference order in the revocation action concerning EP 3 296 274, setting procedural timetable, case valuation, and directions for further submissions including responses to an expert opinion. |
| 2025-11-27 | UPC_CFI_613/2024 | Milan CD | Revocation Action | Revocation merits | Patent maintained | The Milan Central Division dismissed Pari Pharma's revocation action against Philips' nebulizer patent EP 3 397 329 (unitary effect), upholding the patent after finding the prior art combinations relied upon by the claimant do not render the invention obvious to the skilled person. |
| 2025-11-27 | UPC_CFI_613/2024 | Milan CD | Revocation Action | Procedural | Procedural only | The Milan Central Division (full panel: Postiglione, Klein, Callewaert) rectified an obvious slip in its final decision of 27 November 2025 in the revocation action brought by Pari Pharma GmbH against Koninklijke Philips N.V. concerning EP 3 397 329. The decision had incorrectly stated that the patent is registered with unitary effect; this sentence was deleted. The parties did not object. |
| 2025-11-21 | UPC_CFI_829/2024 | Munich CD | Revocation Action | Procedural | Procedural only | The Central Division (Munich) issued an order following the interim conference under Rule 105.5 RoP in UPM-Kymmene's revocation action against International N&H Denmark ApS, setting the case value at EUR 1,000,000 and confirming the oral hearing date of 15 January 2026. |
| 2025-11-20 | UPC_CFI_836/2024 | Munich CD | Revocation Action | Revocation merits | Partially revoked | The Munich Central Division partially revoked EP 4 019 790 B1 for 17 Member States in revocation proceedings brought by BAUSSMANN against Raimund Beck, upholding the patent only as amended per Auxiliary Request III (with claims 5 and 6 unchanged), and dismissing the remaining revocation claim; costs were split 70/30 in favour of the claimant. |
| 2025-11-03 | UPC_CFI_104/2025 | Paris CD | Revocation Action | Procedural | Procedural only | The Central Division Paris issued a procedural order under R. 340 RoP joining the counterclaim for revocation from the Munich Local Division to the pending revocation action before the Central Division Paris, to avoid contradictory decisions on EP 3 812 870. |
| 2025-10-23 | UPC_CFI_497/2024 | Milan CD | Revocation Action | Revocation merits | Patent amended | The Central Division Milan rejected the revocation action by bioMérieux against Labrador Diagnostics' EP 3 756 767 B1 (diagnostic test patent), maintaining the patent in amended form pursuant to Auxiliary Request 3; bioMérieux was ordered to pay EUR 400,000 in legal costs to Labrador. |
| 2025-10-20 | UPC_CFI_189/2024 | Paris CD | Revocation Action | Revocation merits | Patent amended | Decision of the Paris Central Division (Paris Seat) dated 20 October 2025 in the revocation action by Meril entities against Edwards Lifesciences Corporation and the counterclaim for infringement by Edwards regarding EP 4 151 181 B1 (prosthetic heart valve technology). The revocation action was rejected; however, the patent was maintained only in the form of Auxiliary Request 2 (amended). The infringement counterclaim was granted: Meril entities were found to infringe claims 1, 4, 6–12 as amended. Edwards was granted an injunction preventing Meril from all infringing acts with products according to those claims in Contracting Member States, with an exception for XL-size valves (exceeding 30 mm) which was denied on proportionality grounds. Meril was ordered to provide information on infringing products, recall and destroy infringing products, and publish the decision in five media. Damages are to be determined in separate proceedings. Costs of the counterclaim were borne by Meril jointly and severally; costs of the revocation action were shared (each party bears own costs given the patent amendment dynamic). |
| 2025-10-16 | UPC_CFI_564/2024 | Munich LD | Counterclaim for revocation | Revocation merits | Withdrawn | The Munich Local Division permitted the withdrawal of the defendants' counterclaim for revocation of EP 2 387 547 under R. 265.1 RoP, after the main infringement/revocation proceedings had already been decided on 22 August 2025 and within the appeal period, with no costs order by agreement of the parties. |
| 2025-10-10 | UPC_CFI_280/2025 | Munich CD | Revocation Action | Procedural | Procedural only | The Central Division Munich (judge-rapporteur Kupecz) issued an order following the interim conference in the Wirplast v Vilpe revocation action concerning EP 2 649 380, permitting the defendant to re-order its auxiliary requests and setting procedural deadlines. |
| 2025-10-10 | UPC_CFI_688/2024 | Munich LD | Counterclaim for revocation | Revocation merits | Revoked | The same Munich Local Division decision as UPC_CFI_303/2024, in the associated counterclaim proceedings: EP 3 972 309 revoked for added matter and infringement action dismissed. |
| 2025-10-10 | UPC_CFI_448/2024 | Munich LD | Counterclaim for revocation | Revocation merits | Partially revoked | The Munich Local Division issued the same decision (same panel) as UPC_CFI_114/2024 for the associated counterclaim proceedings, finding infringement action dismissed and patent EP 3 215 288 partially revoked. |
| 2025-09-30 | UPC_CFI_320/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Application Rop 265 | Procedural | Withdrawn | The Düsseldorf Local Division recorded Samsung's withdrawal of their counterclaim for revocation and application for cost decision following the court's 30 July 2025 decision dismissing the Headwater infringement action and revoking EP 3 110 069, with each party to bear own costs. |
| 2025-09-25 | UPC_CFI_323/2025 | Paris CD | Application Rop 365 | Procedural | Settled | The Central Division Paris (presiding judge Bessaud) homologated the settlement agreement between Scantrust SA and Advanced Track and Trace (ATT) in the revocation action concerning EP 2 364 485 (geometric code authentication method), recording the settlement as an enforceable court decision pursuant to R. 365 RoP. |
| 2025-09-25 | UPC_CFI_323/2025 | Paris CD | Generic Order | motionName.substantive_other | Settled | Duplicate of the Central Division Paris decision homologating the settlement between Scantrust and ATT in the EP 2 364 485 revocation proceedings (R. 365 RoP). |
| 2025-09-15 | UPC_CFI_374/2024 | Munich LD | Infringement Action | Procedural | Procedural only | Munich Local Division issued a procedural order in Sanofi's infringement action relating to multiple sets of generic pharmaceutical defendants (Accord, STADA, Dr Reddy's, Zentiva) concerning EP 2 493 466. The order addressed case management scheduling matters across four related infringement actions. |
| 2025-09-12 | CC_65106/2024 | Mannheim LD | Counterclaim for revocation | Revocation merits | Infringed | Decision of the Mannheim Local Division finding infringement of EP 2 223 589 by Windhager GmbH (defendant 1) in Germany, Austria and Luxembourg, ordering an injunction, recall, removal from distribution channels, destruction of infringing products, information disclosure, and a declaration of damages liability. The revocation counterclaim was dismissed. Defendants bear costs. The decision establishes that supplying or offering all components of a patented product designed to be assembled without additional items at the point of use constitutes direct infringement under Art. 25(a) UPCA, and that selling even a single component of such a product when assembly is indicated also constitutes direct infringement. |
| 2025-09-01 | UPC_CFI_258/2025 | Paris CD | Preliminary objection | motionName.jurisdictional | Dismissed | The Central Division Paris rejected Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd.'s preliminary objection requesting dismissal of Emporia UK and Ireland Ltd.'s revocation action as inadmissible under Art. 33(4) UPCA. Seoul Viosys argued that Emporia was a 'straw company' acting as a nominee for ex-pert klein GmbH (the defendant in parallel infringement proceedings before the Court of Appeal), and therefore constituted the 'same party'. The Court held that the 'straw company' theory has a legal basis in EU law and may be relevant under Art. 33(4) UPCA, but that mere coordination of litigation strategies between a distributor and its supplier does not constitute proof that one acts as a nominee for the other. |
| 2025-07-31 | UPC_CFI_361/2023 | Paris CD | Generic Order | — | Withdrawn | Decision of Central Division Paris Seat allowing Toyota Motor Europe's withdrawal of its revocation action against Neo Wireless GmbH & Co. KG (EP 3 876 490) under R. 265 RoP. The proceedings had previously been stayed by agreement of the parties. Toyota's withdrawal was consented to by Neo Wireless. The court partially granted the reimbursement of court fees: 40% under R. 370.9(b)(iii) RoP (after closure of the interim procedure but before the oral hearing). |
| 2025-07-28 | UPC_CFI_239/2024 | Paris CD | Revocation Action | Revocation merits | Patent amended | The Central Division Paris rejected the revocation action filed by an anonymous claimant against Essetre Holding spa in respect of EP 2 875 923 B1 (a machine for machining walls). The patent was maintained in amended form as submitted in the Principal Request on 8 August 2024. The Court interpreted 'a working surface' as meaning 'one working surface', applying the ordinary meaning in context of the description and drawings. The revocation action was dismissed as the defendant had submitted a patent limitation during proceedings. Costs were apportioned 70% to the claimant and 30% to the defendant. The case value for costs purposes was set at EUR 100,000. |
| 2025-07-22 | ACT_56003/2024 | Milan CD | Revocation Action | Revocation merits | Infringed | Milan Central Division decision by default on EOFLOW's revocation action (dismissed) and on Insulet's counterclaim for infringement of a patent for wearable insulin delivery devices (patch pump). EOFLOW failed to defend and the Court verified sufficiency of evidence before issuing the default decision. The Court upheld Insulet's infringement claim and granted an injunction ordering EOFLOW to cease infringing acts, provide information/accounts, recall infringing products, and pay compensation for damages since 19 June 2024. The revocation action by EOFLOW was dismissed for lack of prosecution. Costs borne by EOFLOW. Patent terms interpreted according to principal functional meaning. The cost cap applies per instance regardless of number of parties or patents (Administrative Committee decision of 24 March 2023). |
| 2025-07-21 | UPC_CFI_231/2024 | Paris CD | Revocation Action | Revocation merits | Patent maintained | Decision of the Paris Central Division dismissing the revocation action by Sibio Technology Limited against Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. concerning EP 3 831 283 B1 (glucose monitoring device / CGM sensor). All grounds for revocation (lack of novelty and inventive step) failed. The patent is maintained as granted. Abbott (defendant/patentee) awarded costs. Key headnotes: novelty and inventive step are separate grounds and cannot be combined against the same prior art; grounds for revocation of dependent claims must be stated from the outset; Rule 75(3) RoP does not apply when a counterclaim for revocation in a subsequent infringement action is filed after the oral hearing in an earlier revocation action. |
| 2025-07-18 | CC_54050/2024 | Milan CD | Counterclaim for revocation | Procedural | Procedural only | The Milan Central Division issued a procedural order following an interim conference in this counterclaim for revocation, setting the schedule and framework for the oral hearing and managing witness declarations. |
| 2025-07-18 | ACT_48305/2024 | Milan CD | Revocation Action | Procedural | Procedural only | Procedural order issued after the interim conference of 14 July 2025 in a revocation/counterclaim for revocation action concerning EP 3 756 767. The order sets out case management decisions including the oral hearing schedule, treatment of declarants, submission deadlines, and requests parties to agree on the value of the action. |
| 2025-07-14 | ACT_67704/2024 | Munich CD | Revocation Action | Procedural | Procedural only | Munich Central Division (Section) issued a procedural order following an interim hearing (Rule 105.5 RoP) in a revocation action concerning EP 4 019 790. Key decisions: (1) value in dispute set at EUR 500,000; (2) admissibility of exhibit P&A 18 (a Board of Appeal decision on another patent) deferred to the oral hearing; (3) patent amendment workflow issue resolved; (4) cost ceiling of EUR 56,000 noted; (5) oral hearing scheduled for 16 October 2025. |
| 2025-07-09 | CC_51398/2024 | Mannheim LD | Counterclaim for revocation | Procedural | Procedural only | The Mannheim Local Division issued preliminary remarks and questions for the oral hearing in the Total Semiconductor v. Texas Instruments infringement and revocation proceedings concerning EP 2 746 957, identifying key issues related to claim interpretation and validity. |
| 2025-06-30 | UPC_CFI_181/2024 | Paris CD | Application RoP262.1 (b) | — | Procedural only | Procedural order from the Paris Central Division (Seat) dated 30 June 2025 granting Acer Computer GmbH's application under R. 262.1(b) RoP for public access to written pleadings and evidence filed in proceedings concerning an application to amend patent EP 2 661 892 B1 (Nokia Technologies Oy vs HP Printing). The court found Acer had a specific interest in the validity of the patent given that Nokia had brought an infringement action against Acer based on the same patent. Access was granted without ongoing confidentiality obligations post-access. |
| 2025-06-30 | UPC_CFI_181/2024 | Paris CD | Application RoP262.1 (b) | — | Procedural only | Procedural order granting Bardehle Pagenberg Partnerschaft mbB (a third-party applicant) access to written pleadings and evidence filed in the proceedings, subject to a confidentiality obligation while proceedings are pending. The court held that public access may be granted before proceedings end and the court may impose conditions to protect the integrity of proceedings. |
| 2025-06-27 | ACT_67704/2024 | Munich CD | Revocation Action | Procedural | Procedural only | Procedural order of Munich Central Division (27 June 2025) in a revocation action concerning EP 4 019 790, scheduling an online interim conference via Cisco Webex for case management purposes and setting submission deadlines. |
| 2025-05-29 | UPC_CFI_202/2024 | Paris CD | Revocation Action | Revocation merits | Patent amended | The Central Division Paris rejected Lindal's revocation action but maintained EP 3 655 346 B1 as amended by the First Auxiliary Request submitted by the patent proprietor (Rocep-Lusol). The court held that the patent lacked industrial application in its original form but could be maintained in amended form. Claimant (Lindal) bears 70% of costs; defendant (Rocep-Lusol) bears 30%. |
| 2025-05-29 | UPC_CFI_202/2024 | Paris CD | Revocation Action | Revocation merits | Patent amended | The Central Division Paris rejected the revocation action filed by Lindal Dispenser GmbH against Rocep-Lusol Holdings Limited in respect of EP 3 655 346 B1 (a pressure pack dispenser). The patent was maintained in amended form as submitted in the First Auxiliary Request on 26 July 2024 (maintained as EP 1 552 399 in amended form). The Court held that an invention contrary to accepted laws of physics lacks industrial application under Art. 57 EPC. Drawings must be used as explanatory aids but cannot be used to extract a characteristic when contradicted by the description. Costs were apportioned 70% to the claimant and 30% to the defendant. The case value was EUR 1.4 million. |
| 2025-05-28 | ACT_23310/2024 | Paris CD | Revocation Action | Revocation merits | Partially revoked | Paris Central Division (28 May 2025) revoked the German national part of EP 3 822 805 B1 on grounds of added matter (Art. 100(c) EPC), as the patent's claim 1 extended beyond the content of the parent application. All auxiliary requests (AR1–AR16) were either refused admission or failed to overcome the invalidity. Costs were awarded against the patent proprietor (DISH Technologies). |
| 2025-05-22 | ACT_51553/2024 | Munich CD | Revocation Action | Procedural | Procedural only | The Central Division Munich granted the joint request of Kunststoff KG Nehl and Häfele SE to stay the revocation proceedings concerning EP 3 767 151 to allow settlement negotiations to proceed, cancelling the oral hearing scheduled for June 2025. |
| 2025-05-21 | UPC_CFI_230/2024 | Paris CD | Revocation Action | Procedural | Procedural only | The Central Division Paris issued a rectification order correcting a clerical error in the April 2025 decision that revoked EP 1 994 067 B1 in the Kinexon v Ballinno revocation action, correcting the patent number reference from EP 1 994 067 to EP 1 944 067. |
| 2025-04-23 | UPC_CFI_452/2024 | Nordic-Baltic RD | Application Rop 265 | — | Withdrawn | The Nordic-Baltic Regional Division declared proceedings closed following the mutual withdrawal of Viking Arm AS's infringement action and Stanley Black & Decker's counterclaim for revocation concerning EP 3 953 541. Both parties consented to each other's withdrawal and agreed that no cost decision was required. |
| 2025-04-22 | UPC_CFI_476/2024 | Milan CD | Application Rop 265 | — | Withdrawn | Milan Central Division allowed Pfizer's withdrawal of the revocation action and the counterclaim for revocation concerning GlaxoSmithKline's EP 4 183 412 (RSV vaccine patent), allowing GSK to withdraw its corresponding patent amendment application. Proceedings were declared closed. Each party bears its own costs. The request for 60% court fee reimbursement was allowed. |
| 2025-04-18 | UPC_CFI_526/2024 | Munich CD | Generic Order | — | Procedural only | Case management order in a revocation action. The court noted the written pleadings have been exchanged and set the further procedural steps. The claimant seeks full revocation of EP 3 767 151; the defendant seeks dismissal and, in the alternative, maintenance of the patent in amended form across 80 auxiliary requests. |