| 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. |
| 2025-05-30 | 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. |
| 2025-05-23 | UPC_APP_23301/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 265 | Procedural | Withdrawn | The Court of Appeal permitted NJOY Netherlands B.V. to withdraw its appeal against a Paris Central Division decision dismissing its revocation action against Juul Labs. The proceedings were declared closed and the scheduled oral hearing cancelled. NJOY's application for reimbursement of court fees was also addressed. NJOY had limited its appeal to the issue of costs allocation in the revocation proceedings. |
| 2025-05-21 | UPC_APP_21951/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 223 | Procedural | Dismissed | Court of Appeal (Panel 2) rejected Knaus Tabbert AG's application for suspensive effect (R. 223 RoP) pending appeal against a first-instance infringement decision in Yellow Sphere Innovations GmbH / Härtwich v. Knaus Tabbert (Düsseldorf Local Division, EP 3 356 109, vehicle frame with foam resin). The court held: (1) no obviously wrong application of law regarding infringement; (2) enforcement security was within the first-instance court's discretion and Knaus Tabbert failed to raise financial vulnerability of claimant in first instance; (3) the proportionality finding on recall, removal from channels of commerce and destruction was not evidently wrong; (4) the appeal would not become devoid of purpose if enforcement proceeded. |
| 2025-05-21 | UPC_APP_21951/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 223 | Procedural | Injunction denied | The Court of Appeal denied Knaus Tabbert AG's application for suspensive effect of the Dusseldorf Local Division's order of 10 April 2025 (UPC_CFI_50/2024) granting Yellow Sphere and Härtwich an infringement injunction concerning EP 3 356 109 (vehicle frame). The Court found no manifest error in the first-instance decision and no risk of the appeal being rendered devoid of purpose by enforcement. Key headnote: security for enforcement is a discretionary power of the CFI; arguments about the claimant's financial situation cannot be raised for the first time before the Court of Appeal if they could have been raised at first instance. |
| 2025-05-08 | ORD_16127/2025 | Court of Appeal | Generic Order | motionName.jurisdictional | Procedural only | Court of Appeal order changing the language of appeal proceedings from Danish to English with the agreement of both parties under Art. 49(4) UPCA and R. 322 RoP. The underlying appeal concerned the Copenhagen Local Division's refusal to order respondents to pay periodic penalty payments for non-compliance with a prior injunction. The Court of Appeal agreed the language change was appropriate given the limited scope of the appeal and both parties understanding English, and addressed translation costs of existing pleadings. |
| 2025-05-05 | ORD_21186/2025 | Court of Appeal | Decision By Default | Default judgment | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal ruled on issues of public access to the register under R.262.1(b) RoP and clarified the legal framework for reasoned decisions and default decisions, holding that access to written pleadings should not be granted to unrepresented members of the public and that costs should not normally be awarded in R.262.1(b) proceedings. |
| 2025-05-05 | ORD_21232/2025 | Court of Appeal | Decision By Default | Default judgment | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal addressed procedural issues in Meril Italy's appeal, ruling that a decision issued when the respondent was not properly represented constitutes a default decision subject to Rule 356.1 RoP, and that unrepresented public members may not be granted access to pleadings under Rule 262.1(b) RoP. |
| 2025-05-05 | ORD_21240/2025 | Court of Appeal | Decision By Default | Default judgment | Procedural only | Decision by the Court of Appeal (UPC_CoA_636/2024, 5 May 2025) setting aside a first-instance order that had granted a member of the public access to written pleadings under R. 262.1(b) RoP. The CoA held that public applicants for register access must be represented; an unrepresented person cannot validly lodge a statement of response; a reasoned decision under R. 235.3 RoP is effectively a default decision; and no costs should ordinarily be awarded in R. 262.1(b) proceedings. |
| 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. |
| 2025-04-30 | UPC_APP_19228/2025 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | Court of Appeal (Panel 2) order staying appeal proceedings in a revocation action concerning EP 3 504 990 (a patent relating to nicotine/vaping products). The Central Division Paris had revoked the patent at first instance. Juul Labs appealed and applied for a stay pending parallel EPO opposition appeal proceedings (oral hearing scheduled for 14 November 2025). NJOY consented to the stay. The Court of Appeal granted the stay under R. 295(a) RoP / Art. 33(10) UPCA, finding that the EPO proceedings could be expected to conclude rapidly relative to the UPC's own timetable. |
| 2025-04-30 | UPC_APP_20180/2025 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | Court of Appeal order staying appeal proceedings in a revocation action concerning a patent for vaping/e-cigarette technology. The patent had been revoked at first instance (Central Division Paris). Juul Labs appealed and applied for a stay pending parallel EPO opposition appeal proceedings, which were accelerated with oral proceedings scheduled for 17 October 2025. NJOY agreed to the stay. The Court of Appeal stayed proceedings under R. 295(a) RoP as the EPO proceedings could be expected to conclude relatively quickly. |
| 2025-04-28 | UPC_APP_14082/2025 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | The UPC Court of Appeal granted Juul Labs International's application to stay the revocation appeal proceedings pending a final decision by the EPO Boards of Appeal in parallel opposition proceedings concerning EP3430921, noting that both parties agreed to the stay and that the EPO oral proceedings were scheduled for approximately the same time as the UPC appeal hearing. |
| 2025-04-25 | UPC_APP_16612/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application RoP262.1 (b) | Procedural | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal granted a member of the public (Nicoventures) immediate access to written pleadings and evidence under R. 262.1(b) RoP, subject to conditions restricting use of those documents in other proceedings until the appeal is resolved. |
| 2025-04-25 | UPC_APP_13365/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application RoP262.1 (b) | Procedural | Procedural only | Court of Appeal granted Nicoventures Trading Limited's request for access to written pleadings and evidence from appeal proceedings (Rule 262.1(b) RoP) involving Juul Labs and NJOY (nicotine product patents). Access was granted subject to conditions: Nicoventures may not file the pleadings with other courts (e.g. EPO Boards of Appeal) until the UPC appeal is closed, though it may use the arguments or prior art independently. Personal data in the documents was to be redacted by the Registry. Blanket requests for future documents were held inadmissible. |
| 2025-04-25 | UPC_APP_13352/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application RoP262.1 (b) | Procedural | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal granted Nicoventures Trading Limited access to specified written pleadings and evidence from the NJOY vs. VMR Products (Juul) appeal proceedings (UPC_CFI_310/2023), subject to the condition that the documents may not be filed with other courts or distributed until the appeal is concluded. |
| 2025-04-17 | UPC_APP_16648/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 223 | Procedural | Procedural only | Court of Appeal (Panel 2, Rian Kalden as rapporteur) dismissed Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH, and Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH's application for suspensive effect of the Mannheim Local Division's infringement judgment of 2 April 2025 against Kodak. The Mannheim Local Division had found infringement of Fujifilm Corporation's EP 3 511 174, ordered a permanent injunction, damages, information disclosure, product destruction and recall, and EUR 300,000 interim costs. The Court of Appeal held that Kodak had not demonstrated manifest errors in the first-instance decision – the complaints about priority, prior use rights, right to be heard, proportionality of injunction, and cost allocation did not reach the threshold of manifest error on a summary assessment. The Court also addressed R. 171.2 RoP (uncontested facts), clarifying that an uncontested fact does not automatically lead to the legal consequence for which it was invoked. |
| 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 | UPC_APP_16735/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 265 | Procedural | Withdrawn | Order of Court of Appeal (Panel 2) allowing Ericsson's withdrawal of its appeal against the Local Division Munich's rejection of Ericsson's second counterclaim for revocation of EP 3 780 758 (counterclaim had been declared inadmissible as duplicative). The parties agreed each would bear their own costs. The appeal and the underlying second counterclaim for revocation were withdrawn. The court also granted 60% reimbursement of court fees. |
| 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. |
| 2025-02-19 | UPC_APP_2704/2025 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | The UPC Court of Appeal ordered the release of security deposits (totalling EUR 500,000) previously provided by Network System Technologies LLC in three cases following withdrawal of its infringement actions against Audi AG, Texas Instruments, and Volkswagen, applying R.352.2 RoP by analogy to security for 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 | ORD_7284/2025 | Court of Appeal | Generic Order | Procedural | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal addressed representation requirements in a public access-to-file case concerning EP 3 646 825, holding that lawyers and European Patent Attorneys are not exempt from the duty to be represented when they are parties before the UPC, and gave Respondents 14 days to appoint proper representatives. |
| 2025-02-12 | ORD_64355/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic Order | Procedural | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal ruled that lawyers and European Patent Attorneys are not exempt from the mandatory representation requirement under Rule 8.1 RoP when they are themselves parties before the UPC, and that representation is a public policy requirement the court may raise at any time. |
| 2025-02-12 | ORD_7289/2025 | Court of Appeal | Generic Order | Procedural | Procedural only | Court of Appeal order in Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. v. SWAT Medical AB / Respondent 1 concerning representation (R. 8.1 RoP). The appeal arose from a public access application (R. 262.1(b) RoP). The court held: (1) even lawyers and European Patent Attorneys who are themselves parties must be represented before the UPC; (2) representation is a public policy admissibility issue the court may raise at any time of its own motion; (3) Meril Life Sciences' late argument that the access request was inadmissible from the outset due to invalid representation was brought too late under R. 226 and R. 222.2 RoP. |
| 2025-01-24 | UPC_APP_1178/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 265 | Procedural | Withdrawn | Court of Appeal Panel 2 order permitting DexCom's withdrawal of its infringement appeal and declaring the proceedings closed. Background: the Paris Local Division had revoked EP 3 831 282 (continuous glucose monitoring) and dismissed all DexCom infringement claims; DexCom appealed but then applied to withdraw the action including the appeal. The withdrawal was permitted, proceedings closed, and 60% of appeal court fees refunded to DexCom. No costs decision required. |
| 2025-01-24 | ORD_3184/2025 | Court of Appeal | Generic Order | Procedural | Withdrawn | Court of Appeal order allowing withdrawal of the infringement appeal and counterclaim for revocation filed by DexCom against Abbott companies, pursuant to R. 265 RoP. The withdrawal was allowed, proceedings declared closed, and the impugned first-instance decision became ineffective. Court held that withdrawal may be filed in appeal proceedings, that withdrawal of a revocation counterclaim renders amendment requests ineffective, and that closure of proceedings renders the impugned decision ineffective. |
| 2025-01-20 | UPC_APP_283/2025 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | Costs | Dismissed | Court of Appeal dismissed SharkNinja's application for suspension of cost-determination proceedings (R. 295(d) RoP) as inadmissible, because the one-month period for filing a cost-determination application (R. 151 RoP) starts from service of the merits decision, not from service of the preliminary injunction order. Since no merits decision had yet been issued, the application was premature. The court further noted that R. 150/151 RoP apply by analogy where no main proceedings are initiated after unsuccessful provisional measures. |
| 2025-01-20 | UPC_APP_283/2025 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | Costs | Costs only | Court of Appeal (Second Panel) ruled on SharkNinja's application for a stay of cost assessment proceedings and/or extension of time. The Court held that the one-month period for lodging an application for a cost decision (R. 151.1 RoP) begins with service of the decision on the merits, not with service of the provisional measures order. The cost assessment was not stayed pending the merits proceedings. |
| 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. |
| 2025-01-13 | UPC_APP_68553/2024 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 265 | Procedural | Withdrawn | The Court of Appeal permitted Valeo Electrification's withdrawal of its provisional measures appeal action (and the underlying main proceedings before the first instance) following the parties' agreement. The appeal proceedings concerned a preliminary injunction granted by the Düsseldorf Local Division on 31 October 2024 against Magna PT for infringement of EP 3 320 602 in Germany and France. The parties agreed no cost decision was needed. |
| 2025-01-13 | UPC_APP_68579/2024 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 265 | Procedural | Withdrawn | Court of Appeal order allowing withdrawal of Valeo's appeal in provisional measures proceedings concerning an electrification patent, following withdrawal by Valeo under R. 265 RoP. Valeo had obtained a preliminary injunction against Magna at first instance (Düsseldorf LD) which was then appealed by Magna. The Court of Appeal had previously suspended the injunction. Valeo then withdrew its appeal. The Court allowed the withdrawal and closed the proceedings. |
| 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. |
| 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. |
| 2024-12-20 | 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. |
| 2024-12-11 | 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. |
| 2024-12-03 | 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. |
| 2024-11-14 | UPC_APP_61002/2024 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 223 | Procedural | Procedural only | Court of Appeal (Standing Judge Rian Kalden) granted suspensive effect to the appeal by Magna International France, Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG, and Magna PT s.r.o. over a preliminary injunction order (ORD_56545/2024) issued by Düsseldorf Local Division in favour of Valeo Electrification (EP 3 320 602). The suspensive effect was limited to the question whether the 'BMW 2 Series Gran Coupé' model was covered by the exception in the injunction, pending a CFI decision on a request for correction of an obvious slip in the injunction. |
| 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. |