| 2026-03-20 | UPC_CFI_1849/2025 | Dusseldorf LD | Application for an Order for inspection pursuant to RoP199 | Evidence | Procedural only | Order by the President of the Court of First Instance on HyGear B.V.'s request to change the language of the proceedings to the language of the patent (English) under Art. 49(5) UPCA and Rule 323 RoP. The case involves Topsoe A/S's inspection and evidence preservation order against HyGear, SYPOX GmbH, Josef Kerner Energiewirtschafts GmbH and Technical University of Munich concerning EP 3 802 413. Headnotes: when balancing interests on language change, defendant's position is decisive if interests are equal; efficient communication among defendants without translation is especially important in accelerated proceedings. |
| 2026-03-06 | UPC_CFI_282/2026 | Lisbon LD | Application RoP262.1 (b) | Procedural | Procedural only | Lisbon Local Division granted Gowling WLG's application for public access to pleadings filed in the closed preliminary injunction proceedings UPC_CFI_41/2025 (Boehringer v. Zentiva Portugal), pursuant to R. 262.1(b) RoP. Access to specific named pleadings was granted, but a general request for 'evidence' was rejected as insufficiently particularised. |
| 2026-02-24 | UPC_CoA_10/2026 | Court of Appeal | Application RoP262.1 (b) | Procedural | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal ruled on public access to the register under R. 262.1(b) RoP in the Sumi Agro v Syngenta proceedings. The Court established that reasoned requests for written pleadings and evidence lodged at the Court of First Instance must be made to the relevant CFI Division, while requests for documents lodged at the Court of Appeal must be made to the CoA. The Court clarified the allocation of responsibilities between Registrar and Deputy-Registrar and held that a request for access must be specified and cannot require the Court to search and select documents based on relevance criteria set by the requesting party. The decision resolved a jurisdictional question about which court body handles public access requests. |
| 2026-02-24 | UPC_CoA_9/2026 | Court of Appeal | Application RoP262.1 (b) | Procedural | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal ruled on a request by Gowling WLG for public access to the register (R. 262.1(b) RoP) in the Boehringer Ingelheim v. Zentiva proceedings. The Court held that reasoned requests for access to written pleadings lodged at the Court of First Instance must be directed to the relevant CFI division, not the Court of Appeal. Gowling WLG's request for access to pleadings (excluding exhibits) was granted to the extent it did not relate to confidential information. The request for access to exhibits was dismissed as insufficiently specified. |
| 2026-02-19 | UPC_CFI_283/2026 | Paris LD | Application RoP262.1 (b) | Procedural | Procedural only | The Paris Local Division (judge-rapporteur) granted Gowling WLG's application under R. 262.1(b) RoP for access to specific documents in the case file of UPC_CFI_697/2025 (Merz v Viatris provisional measures proceedings). Access was granted to certain procedural pleadings and exhibits concerning specific procedural issues (page limits in objections, extension of time in provisional measures proceedings, and the 'unreasonable delay' criterion under R. 211.4 RoP), but denied for other documents not relevant to the stated purpose. The application was found admissible as Gowling demonstrated a legitimate interest in understanding the court's handling of provisional measures. |
| 2026-02-11 | UPC_CFI_274/2023 | Hamburg LD | Determination of damages and compensation | motionName.damages | Dismissed | Hamburg Local Division dismissed Fives ECL's claim for damages (lost profits) against REEL GmbH in determination of damages proceedings. The Court found that Fives ECL had not sufficiently demonstrated that the profit loss was causally linked to the patent infringement, given that the infringer could have submitted an alternative non-infringing offer. National German law applied as the relevant facts occurred before 1 June 2023. |
| 2026-02-10 | UPC_CFI_1738/2025 | Milan LD | Application For Costs | Costs | Costs only | The Milan Local Division ruled on an application for a cost decision following the first-instance decision in UPC_CFI_178/2024 and 432/2024. The court held the application was not rendered premature by Progress's pending appeal, as cost proceedings are independent from appeal proceedings. |
| 2026-02-02 | UPC_CFI_657/2025 | Dusseldorf LD | Generic Order | Costs | Costs only | The Düsseldorf Local Division issued a cost decision following the merits judgment of 16 June 2025 (10x Genomics v. Curio Bioscience), apportioning costs of PI proceedings and main action proceedings at a 30%/70% ratio (claimant/defendant) based on the parties' respective success. |
| 2026-02-02 | UPC_CFI_658/2025 | Dusseldorf LD | Generic Order | Costs | Costs only | The Düsseldorf Local Division issued a costs decision in the 10x Genomics v Curio Bioscience proceedings (EP 2 697 391), establishing that costs of PI proceedings and main proceedings are capped separately, that mixing of costs between proceedings is inadmissible, and that in partial success the ceiling is reduced proportionally. |
| 2026-01-26 | N/A | Court of Appeal | Petition for review of Registrar's decision | — | Dismissed | The President of the Court of Appeal dismissed an anonymous applicant's petition for review of the Registrar's decision rejecting his application to be entered on the list of UPC representatives. The Registrar had rejected the application because it was filed outside the one-year transition period from the entry into force of the UPCA on 1 June 2023, as required by R. 12.1 EPLC Rules. The President held that the one-year time period is not discriminatory and that the applicant's 'Kandidatenkurs Fischbachau' certificate qualified under R. 12.1(a) but was submitted outside the permitted timeframe. |
| 2026-01-23 | UPC_CFI_1325/2025 | Dusseldorf LD | Application for an Order for inspection pursuant to RoP199 | Evidence | Procedural only | The Düsseldorf Local Division issued a further order in the Van Loon v. Inverquark evidence preservation proceedings, addressing the release of the expert's detailed description and a request for a supplementary expert opinion following the Aquanale Köln inspection. |
| 2026-01-13 | UPC_CFI_1624/2025 | Munich LD | Application For Costs | Costs | Procedural only | The Munich Local Division (in German) granted the claimant re-establishment of rights under R. 320 RoP for missing the deadline to initiate cost proceedings following a cost ratio decision, finding an excusable misunderstanding of the legal situation despite legal representation; a dissenting opinion was appended. |
| 2026-01-13 | UPC_CFI_1624/2025 | Munich LD | Application For Costs | Costs | Procedural only | The Munich Local Division (English version) granted the claimant re-establishment of rights under R. 320 RoP for missing the deadline to initiate cost proceedings, with a dissenting opinion holding the application should be inadmissible for lack of legal interest. |
| 2026-01-05 | UPC_CFI_730/2025 | Hamburg LD | Application For Costs | Costs | Costs only | Hamburg Local Division cost assessment decision in the Nera Innovations v. Xiaomi proceedings. The Court determined the reimbursable costs for appeal proceedings under R. 220.2 RoP, holding that: (1) two authorised representatives are generally permissible but not necessary in R. 220.2 appeal on specific procedural issue; (2) the ceiling for reimbursable costs for main proceedings does not apply to R. 220.2 appeals on sub-issues; (3) travel expenses for at least one natural person are always reimbursable; and (4) even a successful party must generally bear its own costs in cost assessment proceedings. |
| 2026-01-05 | UPC_CFI_730/2025 | Hamburg LD | Application For Costs | Costs | Costs only | Duplicate of the Hamburg Local Division cost assessment decision (5 January 2026) in the Nera Innovations v. Xiaomi proceedings (UPC_CFI_730/2025), determining reimbursable costs for R. 220.2 RoP appeal proceedings on service of statement of claim. |
| 2025-12-24 | UPC_APP_20809/2025 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | motionName.appeal_decision | Settled | The Court of Appeal permitted Sumi Agro Limited and Sumi Agro Europe Limited's withdrawal of their application for rehearing (R. 245 RoP) in the appeal UPC_CoA_523/2024, filed following ongoing settlement discussions between the parties. Both parties jointly applied for the withdrawal, agreed that no costs would be claimed, and requested release of the security deposit. The proceedings were declared closed. |
| 2025-12-22 | UPC_CoA_886/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application RoP262.1 (b) | Procedural | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal granted Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP's application for access to written pleadings (Statement of Appeal and Statement of Response) filed in UPC_CoA_768/2024 (Insulet v. EOFlow), to the extent that redacted versions were available. The Court affirmed that a law firm qualifies as a member of the public under R. 262.1(b) RoP and does not need a bona fide third party behind the application. Commercial interest in understanding UPC decisions does not preclude access. |
| 2025-12-22 | UPC_CFI_407/2025 | Dusseldorf LD | Withdrawal (RoP265) | Withdrawal | Withdrawn | The Düsseldorf Local Division accepted the mutual withdrawal of Atlas Global Technologies' infringement action and Vantiva's counterclaim for revocation concerning EP 3 353 901, with the parties waiving a cost decision. |
| 2025-12-19 | UPC_CFI_834/2025 | Dusseldorf LD | Generic Order | Evidence | Procedural only | The Düsseldorf Local Division revoked an earlier ex parte evidence preservation order against Roborock, finding that Ecovacs (the applicant) had violated the duty of complete and truthful disclosure under R. 192.3 RoP, rendering the order unlawful in its entirety. |
| 2025-12-19 | UPC_CFI_1600/2025 | Dusseldorf LD | Application for an Order for inspection pursuant to RoP199 | Evidence | Procedural only | The Düsseldorf Local Division ordered disclosure of the expert's detailed description from the MEDICA trade fair inspection to LiNA Medical, following the same reasoning as in UPC_CFI_1598/2025, after Tonglu Qianyan Medtech failed to appoint a UPC representative to access the CMS. |
| 2025-12-19 | UPC_CFI_1598/2025 | Dusseldorf LD | Application for an Order for inspection pursuant to RoP199 | Evidence | Procedural only | The Düsseldorf Local Division ordered disclosure of the expert's report from the MEDICA trade fair inspection to LiNA Medical, after Schultz Medical failed to appoint a UPC representative and thus could not assert confidentiality interests before the disclosure deadline. |
| 2025-12-19 | UPC_APP_35643/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application RoP262.1 (b) | Procedural | Dismissed | The Court of Appeal dismissed Docket Navigator's application for access to written pleadings and evidence in the Sumi Agro v. Syngenta proceedings (UPC_CoA_523/2024) under R. 262.1(b) RoP. The Court held that granting access to a commercial patent intelligence platform intending to republish documents to its subscribers is not an interest protected under Art. 45 UPCA. Copyright is not a general interest to be considered under Art. 45 UPCA. The requirement of representation and the proper conduct of proceedings would be compromised by granting access for commercial redistribution purposes. |
| 2025-12-17 | UPC_CFI_1262/2025 | The Hague LD | Application RoP262.1 (b) | Procedural | Dismissed | The Hague Local Division refused an anonymous applicant's request to access the case file of UPC_CFI_830/2025 (an application for provisional measures by Abbott Diabetes Care against MicroTech Medical and others relating to EP 3 960 072, a diabetes monitoring device). The applicant claimed to represent a competitor conducting a freedom-to-operate analysis for a CGM product. The Court found the applicant's specific interest insufficiently established: the identity of the unnamed 'client' could not be verified, and the urgency of access before the proceedings concluded was not justified, particularly given the proceedings were expected to conclude within weeks. |
| 2025-12-10 | UPC_CFI_1849/2025 | Dusseldorf LD | Application for an Order for inspection pursuant to RoP199 | Evidence | Procedural only | The Düsseldorf Local Division issued an ex parte order for inspection and preservation of evidence at HyGear B.V.'s premises, extending the earlier inspection campaign by Topsoe regarding alleged infringement of EP 3 802 413 to a third respondent. |
| 2025-12-05 | UPC_CFI_775/2025 | Nordic-Baltic RD | Application RoP262A | Procedural | Procedural only | The Nordic-Baltic Regional Division stayed the cost proceedings between Edwards Lifesciences and Meril pending the outcome of EPO Board of Appeal opposition proceedings against EP 3 769 722, and provisionally ordered confidentiality obligations by mutual agreement of the parties. |
| 2025-12-05 | UPC_CFI_342/2025 | Milan LD | Application for preserving evidence pursuant to RoP192 | Evidence | Procedural only | The Milan Local Division dismissed the defendants' challenge to a previously granted evidence preservation order in the 3V Sigma v. AGA/ACEF chemical patent case, holding that the claimant had fulfilled its duty of disclosure and that sufficient prima facie evidence of infringement was presented to justify the order. |
| 2025-12-05 | UPC_CFI_492/2024 | Copenhagen LD | Application for preserving evidence pursuant to RoP192 | Evidence | outcomeName.other | The Copenhagen Local Division (in Danish) imposed penalty payments of EUR 67,500 on HGSystem ApS and associated entities for delayed compliance with a preservation of evidence order in proceedings concerning EP 4 238 202 B1. The defendants had failed to provide access codes and login information for financial systems, email accounts, and a seized computer for 36 days. The Court found penalties of EUR 5,000 per day appropriate for the first 18-day period and EUR 2,500 per day for the subsequent 18 days, acknowledging that penalties also serve a punitive function even where the obligation has since been fulfilled. Costs deferred to the main proceedings. |
| 2025-12-04 | UPC_CFI_1167/2025 | Milan CD | Application RoP262A | Procedural | Procedural only | Milan Central Division addressed Insulet's application for penalty payments against EOFlow for alleged non-compliance with injunctions from both the Court of Appeal's preliminary injunction order (30 April 2025) and the Central Division Milan's decision on the merits (22 July 2025) concerning EP 4 201 327. The order also addresses confidentiality of certain information under R. 262 and R. 262A RoP. |
| 2025-11-26 | UPC_CFI_1696/2025 | Dusseldorf LD | Application for an Order for inspection pursuant to RoP199 | Evidence | Procedural only | The Düsseldorf Local Division issued a correction order amending address details in the inspection order of 25 November 2025 for the SYPOX/Kerner hydrogen production premises, rectifying inaccuracies in street addresses specified in the body of the order. |
| 2025-11-25 | UPC_CFI_1696/2025 | Dusseldorf LD | Application for an Order for inspection pursuant to RoP199 | Evidence | Procedural only | The Düsseldorf Local Division granted an ex parte inspection and evidence preservation order at the premises and production sites of SYPOX GmbH and Josef Kerner Energiewirtschafts-GmbH regarding hydrogen production equipment (SYPOX H-200/H-400) allegedly infringing Topsoe's EP 3 802 413 B1. |
| 2025-11-19 | UPC_CFI_539/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Application RoP262A | Procedural | Procedural only | The Düsseldorf Local Division ruled on the partial release of an expert inspection report to Bekaert Binjiang (claimant), ordering redaction of trade secrets (prices, quantities, customer bank details) that were irrelevant to the infringement question, while authorising disclosure of technically relevant information such as wire coating characteristics. |
| 2025-11-18 | UPC_CFI_1600/2025 | Dusseldorf LD | Application for preserving evidence pursuant to RoP192 | Evidence | Procedural only | The Düsseldorf Local Division granted an ex parte order for inspection and preservation of evidence at Tonglu Qianyan Medtech's exhibition booth at the MEDICA trade fair, to establish whether a 'disposable morcellator' infringes LiNA Medical's EP 2 593 025 B1. |
| 2025-11-18 | UPC_CFI_1598/2025 | Dusseldorf LD | Application for preserving evidence pursuant to RoP192 | Evidence | Procedural only | The Düsseldorf Local Division granted an ex parte order for inspection and preservation of evidence at Schultz Medical's exhibition booth at the MEDICA trade fair in Düsseldorf, to establish whether the 'MORCELLIX' morcellator implements the claims of LiNA Medical's EP 2 593 025 B1. |
| 2025-11-17 | UPC_CFI_1589/2025 | Dusseldorf LD | Application for an Order for inspection pursuant to RoP199 | Evidence | Procedural only | The Düsseldorf Local Division granted an ex parte order for inspection and preservation of evidence at the PRODUCTRONICA trade fair in Munich regarding a wire processing machine 'BZW-3005' by Jiangsu BOZHIWANG, prior to a main infringement action by Komax. |
| 2025-11-17 | UPC_CFI_885/2025 | Dusseldorf LD | Application for an Order for inspection pursuant to RoP199 | Evidence | Procedural only | The Düsseldorf Local Division ordered the release of an expert report obtained during an earlier trade fair inspection (EMO Hannover) to OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH, ruling on the redaction of trade secrets (prices, quantities, customer bank details) while allowing disclosure of technical measurements relevant to infringement. |
| 2025-11-12 | UPC_CFI_407/2025 | Brussels LD | Application for an Order for inspection pursuant to RoP199 | Evidence | Procedural only | Review order by the Brussels Local Division following an ex parte order for preservation of evidence/inspection pursuant to Rule 197.3 RoP in Genentech/Roche v Organon proceedings. The court confirmed the inspection orders with modifications, set a deadline for expert reports, and set a 31-day (or 20 working day) term for initiating infringement proceedings after receipt of the experts' report. |
| 2025-11-11 | UPC_CFI_879/2025 | Mannheim LD | Application For Costs | Costs | Withdrawn | The Mannheim Local Division permitted the withdrawal of Faro Technologies' application for cost assessment (Kostenfestsetzung) against Blankenhorn GmbH following an out-of-court settlement between the parties, with no costs order. |
| 2025-10-30 | UPC_CFI_1325/2025 | Dusseldorf LD | Application for an Order for inspection pursuant to RoP199 | Evidence | Procedural only | The Düsseldorf Local Division granted an ex parte order for inspection and preservation of evidence at the Aquanale trade fair in Cologne regarding the defendants' 'InverJet' counter-current swimming device, in anticipation of a main infringement action. |
| 2025-10-27 | UPC_CFI_127/2025 | Milan LD | Application for preserving evidence pursuant to RoP192 | Evidence | Procedural only | The Milan Local Division, following panel review (R.333 RoP) at Xelom's request, confirmed the ex-parte evidence preservation order (sequestro / saisie) issued in favour of Prinoth S.p.A. against Xelom s.r.l. The order confirmed the preservation of evidence relating to EP 1 995 159 and EP 2 507 436 (snow grooming / ski slope preparation equipment). Key holdings: (1) For ex-parte evidence preservation, the court's assessment is necessarily ex ante and does not require proof of certain destruction—statistical probability of evidence alteration suffices. (2) Procedural correctness of the patent holder must be assessed relative to the patent at issue; references to foreign patent prosecution are irrelevant. (3) The adequate security (garanzia) must be proportionate to potential damage and costs of litigation at the evidence acquisition stage only, not projected across the entire future proceedings. |
| 2025-10-17 | UPC_CFI_404/2025 | Munich LD | Generic Order | Costs | Costs only | The Munich Local Division issued a costs decision in favour of Edwards Lifesciences against Meril, ruling on the reasonableness and proportionality of claimed costs including travel expenses and multiple representatives, and awarding costs in proceedings of above-average complexity. |
| 2025-10-16 | UPC_CFI_941/2025 | Milan CD | Application RoP262.1 (b) | Procedural | Procedural only | The Central Division Milan, acting under R. 262.1(b) RoP, issued a final order on a third party's (Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP) application for access to redacted documents from the closed Insulet v. EOFLOW proceedings, balancing transparency principles with confidentiality. |
| 2025-10-15 | UPC_CFI_774/2025 | Milan CD | Application For Costs | Costs | Costs only | The Central Division Milan decided a cost application in the Insulet v. EOFLOW proceedings, ruling that costs incurred after publication of the merits decision and enforcement costs fall outside the scope of R. 151 RoP and are not recoverable in the cost decision. |
| 2025-10-02 | UPC_CFI_636/2025 | Mannheim LD | Application Rop 333 | Procedural | Procedural only | The Mannheim Local Division issued a procedural order under R. 333 RoP reviewing the earlier rejection of Centripetal Limited's saisie application against Palo Alto Networks concerning EP 3 281 580 (network security), upholding the rejection for failure to submit sufficient facts about the infringing system. |
| 2025-10-02 | UPC_CFI_636/2025 | Mannheim LD | Request to review an order ex-parte | motionName.ex_parte | outcomeName.other | The Mannheim Local Division granted Palo Alto Networks' request to review and revoked the ex-parte saisie (evidence preservation) order of 3 June 2025 (amended 9 July 2025) issued in favour of Centripetal Limited concerning EP 3 281 580. The Court found that the saisie order should not have been issued because it was not apparent from the ex-ante perspective that the Munich branch office premises (a co-working sales space) contained staff with access to the technical network security system Centripetal sought to inspect. The Court held that a saisie order cannot require a defendant to increase employee access rights or bring equipment not ordinarily present at the premises. The Court also noted that Centripetal had an ongoing duty of candour to update the Court on new material facts. Confidentiality measures from the original order remained in force. |
| 2025-09-25 | UPC_CFI_897/2025 | The Hague LD | Application for preserving evidence pursuant to RoP192 | Evidence | Procedural only | The Hague Local Division issued an ex parte order for preservation of evidence (physical seizure of the SD-14010 seed counting machine) at the Seed meets Technology 2025 trade fair against Turkish company Esde Makine, regarding alleged infringement of Data Detection Technologies' EP 2 569 713. |
| 2025-09-23 | UPC_APP_33679/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop313 | Procedural | Procedural only | Court of Appeal admitted Apple Inc.'s applications to intervene in the appeal proceedings (Ericsson v. ASUS) concerning confidentiality orders relating to licensing agreements between Ericsson and Apple. The CoA held that Apple has a direct and present legal interest in the result of the proceedings under R.313.1 RoP, as the confidential information at issue concerns Apple–Ericsson agreements. Apple was granted 15 days to file a Statement in intervention and will be permitted to participate in the oral hearing. |
| 2025-09-23 | UPC_CFI_342/2025 | Milan LD | Application RoP262A | Procedural | Procedural only | The Milan Local Division issued an order on the confidentiality of documents seized during evidence preservation proceedings, setting a temporary confidentiality regime and inviting the parties to submit observations on 3V Sigma's access to the unredacted confidential documentation. |
| 2025-09-22 | UPC_CFI_885/2025 | Dusseldorf LD | Application for an Order for inspection pursuant to RoP199 | Evidence | Procedural only | The Düsseldorf Local Division granted OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH an ex parte inspection and evidence preservation order against STEROS GPA INNOVATIVE S.L. at the Hannover Messe trade fair, concerning EP 2 983 864 B1 (surface finishing technology). |
| 2025-09-18 | UPC_APP_36449/2025 | Munich LD | Generic Order | motionName.jurisdictional | Procedural only | The President of the Court of First Instance issued an order on OPPO's application to change the language of proceedings from German to English in the infringement action brought by Crystal Clear Codec against OPPO entities based on EP 2 622 601 (video codec). |
| 2025-09-18 | ORD_29532/2025 | Dusseldorf LD | Generic Order | Procedural | Procedural only | Düsseldorf Local Division (18 September 2025) stayed the proceedings against TP-Link Corporation PTE. LTD. (defendant 1) by consent of the parties pending the outcome of EPO opposition appeal proceedings (R. 295(a) RoP), extending a prior stay already in place against defendants 2–4. |