| 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. |
| 2025-09-08 | UPC_APP_35761/2025 | Paris CD | Application RoP262A | Procedural | Procedural only | The Paris Central Division granted Microsoft Corporation's application for confidential treatment (R. 262A RoP) of an exhibit containing invoices from its law firm, including details of hours spent and fees agreed, filed in the cost decision proceedings against Suinno (ACT_34440/2025 / UPC_CFI_724/2025, EP 2 671 173). The Court held that fee invoices and billing details qualify as confidential information under R. 262A because they reveal the client's financial standing, patent asset valuation strategy, and are covered by attorney-client privilege under R. 287 RoP. |
| 2025-04-29 | ACT_831/2025 | Paris CD | Application For Costs | Costs | Costs only | The Central Division Paris issued a costs order in connection with the revocation action UPC_CFI_454/2023, requiring Tandem Diabetes to pay Roche Diabetes Care's representation and litigation costs. The Court rejected Tandem Diabetes's request to stay the costs proceedings pending the appeal against the decision on the merits. |
| 2025-04-29 | ACT_831/2025 | Paris CD | Application For Costs | Costs | Costs only | The Paris Central Division issued a cost decision ordering Tandem Diabetes Care to pay Roche Diabetes Care's legal costs of EUR 112,000 plus travel expenses and court fees totalling approximately EUR 119,623, following Roche's success in the underlying revocation action. |
| 2025-04-29 | ACT_6322/2025 | Paris CD | Application For Costs | Costs | Costs only | The Central Division Paris issued a costs decision in the revocation action (BMW v. ITCiCo Spain), clarifying that costs incurred in the application to set aside a default decision are recoverable within the main costs proceedings, not as a separate cost decision. |
| 2025-04-29 | UPC_CFI_98/2025 | Paris CD | Application For Costs | — | Costs only | Order of Central Division Paris Seat in BMW v ITCiCo Spain (EP 2 796 333) on an application for a costs decision. BMW (applicant/claimant in the revocation action, where a default judgment had revoked the patent) sought recovery of costs incurred in opposing ITCiCo's failed application to set aside the default judgment. The court held that an application to set aside a decision by default is an internal procedural remedy and does not independently give rise to costs: those costs may be claimed within the costs proceedings related to the underlying default judgment. |
| 2025-04-16 | UPC_CFI_539/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Request to review an order ex-parte | motionName.ex_parte | Procedural only | The Düsseldorf Local Division ruled on Siltronic AG's application for review of an ex parte preservation of evidence and inspection order (R. 197.3 and .4 RoP) obtained by Bekaert Binjiang Steel Cord Co. against Siltronic AG and Hinterberger GmbH & Co. KG concerning EP 3 212 356 B1. The court confirmed that a preservation order may encompass the seizure of delivery notes and invoices, that the list in R. 196.1 is not exhaustive, and that such measures may be used to gather evidence of individual acts of use. The court upheld the order in substance. |
| 2025-04-02 | UPC_APP_61657/2024 | Paris CD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | Order of the Paris Central Division (full panel) declining to issue a decision by default against Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy (claimant in infringement action) following Suinno's failure to provide security for costs within the Court-set deadline. Microsoft Corporation (defendant/counterclaimant) requested a default decision revoking the patent and dismissing the infringement action. The court set out key headnotes: (1) even where the default is evident and unjustified, the court retains discretionary power not to issue a default decision; (2) the court may decline a default where the evidentiary record at time of default does not allow sufficiently confident assessment of the non-defaulting party's claims. The court found the existing record insufficient to confidently assess the merits of Microsoft's revocation counterclaim and declined to revoke the patent by default. |
| 2025-03-13 | UPC_APP_7866/2025 | Paris CD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | The Paris Central Division (Panel 2) rejected Microsoft Corporation's application to have Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy's infringement action declared manifestly inadmissible on the grounds that the claimant's representative allegedly had excessive financial authority over the claimant entity, finding that a lack of valid representation does not render the action inadmissible but merely requires the party to remedy the deficit. |
| 2025-01-24 | UPC_APP_67889/2024 | Paris CD | Application RoP262.1 (b) | Procedural | Procedural only | The Paris Central Division (sitting as CFI) dismissed the Institute of Professional Representatives before the EPO (EPI)'s application for public access to written pleadings and evidence in the Suinno v Microsoft infringement proceedings (UPC_CFI_164/2024, EP 2 671 173). The Court held that the interest in protecting the integrity and independence of proceedings (particularly given the EPI's professional interest in the status of in-house European Patent Attorneys at the UPC) outweighed the access interest, as the matter raised a purely legal and general issue that did not require access to the specific case file. |
| 2025-01-14 | UPC_APP_67325/2024 | Paris CD | Application Rop 265 | Procedural | Withdrawn | The Paris Central Division permitted Bentley Motors Limited to withdraw its revocation action (ACT_19132/2024) against Network Systems Technologies LLC concerning EP 1 552 399. The respondent confirmed consent to the withdrawal and no cost application was filed by either party. The proceedings were deemed closed and all prior orders of no effect. |
| 2024-12-27 | UPC_APP_55923/2024 | Paris CD | Application Rop 333 | Procedural | Procedural only | The Central Division (Paris) ruled on Suinno Mobile's application to vary the security for costs order in its infringement action against Microsoft, holding that a reduction in claimed damages did not affect the value of proceedings for security purposes. |
| 2024-12-27 | UPC_APP_61655/2024 | Paris CD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | Paris Central Division (panel) order on Microsoft Corporation's application for additional security for costs against Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy in infringement proceedings concerning EP 2 671 173. The court had previously ordered EUR 300,000 in security for costs; Microsoft sought at least EUR 500,000 more. The order addresses the standard for increasing existing security and likely grants a modification, treating the request as one to increase the existing security order. No substantive ruling on infringement. |
| 2024-12-12 | UPC_APP_64780/2024 | Paris CD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | The Central Division Paris denied Microsoft Corporation's request for leave to appeal the order granting Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies leave to change its claim (reducing damages to EUR 2 million), holding that the order did not involve legal issues of different interpretations or serving a concrete interest of the parties. |
| 2024-11-26 | UPC_APP_55394/2024 | Paris CD | Amend Document | Procedural | Procedural only | The Central Division Paris granted Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies leave to reduce the damages sought from a higher amount to EUR 2 million, holding that a reduction of the damages claimed constitutes an unconditional limitation of a claim that must always be granted under R.263(3) RoP. |
| 2024-10-14 | UPC_APP_33486/2024 | Paris CD | Application RoP262.1 (b) | Procedural | Procedural only | The Paris Central Division ruled on applications for public access to pleadings and evidence filed by SWAT Medical AB (KIPA AB) in relation to revocation and counterclaim proceedings between Meril entities and Edwards Lifesciences concerning EP 3 646 825. |
| 2024-10-08 | UPC_APP_52773/2024 | Paris CD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | Paris Central Division (judge-rapporteur) denied Edwards Lifesciences Corporation's application for a time extension to file its rejoinder in proceedings UPC_CFI_189/2024, holding that the principle of procedural efficiency must yield to the fair trial principle only where the extension would not disadvantage the party who had already complied with the shorter ordinary deadline. Since the respondents (Meril) had already met the ordinary deadline, granting Edwards an extension would be unfair. |
| 2024-09-30 | UPC_APP_42517/2024 | Paris CD | Generic application | Costs | Procedural only | Order of the Paris Central Division (full panel) on Microsoft Corporation's application for security for legal costs against Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy (a Finnish NPE). The court addressed the standard for ordering security: the financial position of the respondent must give rise to a legitimate and real concern that a costs order may not be recoverable or enforceable. The court found Microsoft established the highest possible insolvency risk, as Suinno lacked substantial assets. The court ordered Suinno to provide adequate security for costs in the infringement action (UPC_CFI_164/2024). The respondent's reciprocal request was rejected. |
| 2024-09-23 | UPC_APP_33484/2024 | Paris CD | Application RoP262.1 (b) | Procedural | Procedural only | The Paris Central Division (Seat) ruled on a third-party access application (R. 262.1(b) RoP) by KIPA AB (an anonymised applicant) seeking access to all pleadings and evidence in the revocation action between Meril entities and Edwards Lifesciences Corporation concerning EP 4 151 181. The court assessed the applicant's interest as a competitor investor in cardiac implant technology. |
| 2024-09-17 | UPC_APP_40799/2024 | Paris CD | Application Rop 333 | Procedural | Procedural only | The Central Division Paris panel upheld (on review under R.333 RoP) the judge-rapporteur's confidentiality order protecting certain documents submitted by Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies in the infringement action against Microsoft, and granted leave to appeal the underlying order. |
| 2024-09-17 | UPC_APP_42138/2024 | Paris CD | Application Rop 333 | Procedural | Dismissed | Order of the Central Division Paris Seat in Microsoft v Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies (EP 2 671 173). The panel dismissed Microsoft's application to review the judge-rapporteur's earlier order that had rejected Microsoft's request to declare Suinno's action manifestly inadmissible under R. 361 RoP. The panel held that manifest inadmissibility requires the defect to be clearly evident without in-depth analysis. Microsoft's alternative request for leave to appeal and for a preliminary ruling by the CJEU on the independence requirement under Art. 48(5) UPCA was also addressed. |
| 2024-09-16 | UPC_APP_5975/2024 | Paris CD | Generic application | Procedural | Revoked | The Central Division (Paris) granted BMW's revocation action by default against ITCiCo Spain S.L. under Rule 355 RoP, revoking EP 2 796 333 in its entirety for all UPC member states in which it was in force. The defendant failed to participate. |
| 2024-04-30 | UPC_APP_19959/2024 | Paris CD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | The Paris Central Division exercised its discretion to admit Edwards Lifesciences' subsequent request to amend patent EP 3 646 825 after the written procedure had closed, provided that Meril Italy was granted additional time to submit a defence to the new amendment, holding that such admission does not prejudice the opposing party's right of defence. |