| 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. |
| 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. |
| 2025-08-19 | ORD_35092/2025 | Munich LD | Rule 264 Order | Procedural | Procedural only | The Munich Local Division judge-rapporteur ordered separation of proceedings, directing that the action against defendants 1 and 2 (represented defendants) be separated from the main proceedings, with all procedural time limits as in the original action. |
| 2025-08-11 | UPC_APP_23444/2025 | Munich LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | Procedural order in an infringement action concerning security for costs (Art. 69.4 UPCA, R. 158 RoP). Defendants requested the claimant (a Cypriot entity) provide security of EUR 3.3 million total (EUR 1.1 million per defendant). Claimant opposed or sought a lower amount with insurance as alternative security. The order addresses the competing requests for security for costs but the operative decision text was not fully reproduced in the excerpt. |
| 2025-08-11 | UPC_APP_20446/2025 | Munich LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | Munich Local Division ordered claimant Syntorr LP to provide security for costs to defendants Arthrex Inc., Arthrex GmbH, and Arthrex Distribution Hub EMEA B.V. in the total amount of EUR 2,000,000 by 30 September 2025, either by bank guarantee or deposit. The court rejected Syntorr's litigation insurance policy as adequate security under Rule 158(1) RoP but set the amount at the regular ceiling of EUR 2,000,000 rather than the EUR 3,300,000 requested. Defendants' request for EUR 3,300,000 was dismissed. |
| 2025-07-22 | UPC_APP_23201/2025 | Munich LD | Generic application | Evidence | Procedural only | Munich Local Division full panel order (Zigann/Pichlmaier/Schober) in inspection/evidence preservation proceedings (Beweissicherungsverfahren) between Nanoval GmbH & Co. KG (applicant) and ALD Vacuum Technologies GmbH (respondent) concerning EP 3 083 107. The court dismissed ALD's application to revoke the inspection order of 3 February 2025 under R. 198.1 VerfO, finding that Nanoval had filed the main action (on 3 May 2025) within the prescribed time limit. The court clarified (headnotes) that: (1) the court has no discretion over the length of the R. 198.1 period but does have discretion over its start date; (2) the rapporteur may change the start date if the expert report is delivered late; (3) such a procedural order is subject to panel review under R. 333 VerfO within 15 days. |
| 2025-06-27 | UPC_APP_24524/2025 | Munich LD | Application Rop 333 | Procedural | Procedural only | Procedural order from the Munich Local Division (UPC_CFI_148/2024 and UPC_CFI_503/2024) on Zentiva's application under R. 333 RoP for panel review of the judge-rapporteur's case management order of 8 May 2025 in Sanofi's infringement action concerning EP 2 493 466. The full panel reviewed how preliminary objections should be handled and the timetable for subsequent proceedings. |
| 2025-06-03 | UPC_APP_21220/2025 | Munich LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | Munich Local Division procedural order on Meril's applications (R. 353 RoP) for rectification of a decision of 4 April 2025 in infringement proceedings concerning a prosthetic heart valve patent (EP 3 669 828) between Edwards Lifesciences and Meril. Meril sought corrections to factual statements about which claims were alleged to be infringed (independent claims 1 and 12 vs. only claim 1 as independent). The order addresses the scope of rectification available under R. 353 RoP. |
| 2025-06-03 | UPC_APP_23569/2025 | Munich LD | Application Rop313 | Procedural | Procedural only | The Munich Local Division granted the application by Shenzhen Dianming Technology Co., Ltd. to join UPC_CFI_245/2025 (SWARCO FUTURIT v Yunex GmbH, EP 2 643 717) as an intervener (Streithelferin) supporting the defendant. The Court also rejected Yunex's earlier application for intervention given it was superseded. Shenzhen Dianming was given 10 days to submit its intervention brief and to respond to the security for costs application. |
| 2025-05-28 | ORD_25482/2025 | Munich LD | Generic Order | Evidence | Procedural only | Order of the Munich Local Division on a review (Rule 197.3 RoP) requested by ALD Vacuum Technologies GmbH of an ex-parte evidence preservation and inspection order made on 3 February 2025 in favour of Nanoval GmbH & Co. KG concerning EP 3 083 107. After an oral hearing, the panel reviewed whether the evidence preservation order should be upheld or annulled. |
| 2025-04-16 | UPC_APP_8962/2025 | Munich LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | The Munich Local Division judge-rapporteur ordered AorticLab srl (defendant/counterclaimant) to provide security for costs in favour of the claimant Emboline Inc., finding that AorticLab's own statement that it would be driven to insolvency by an injunction demonstrated a legitimate and real concern that a costs order might not be recoverable. |
| 2025-04-14 | UPC_APP_15498/2025 | Munich LD | Amend Document | Procedural | Procedural only | Munich Local Division order on Syngenta's application (R. 263 RoP) for leave to amend its claim in infringement proceedings concerning a pesticide patent to extend the territorial scope of its claim to Poland, Czech Republic and the United Kingdom. Sumi Agro opposed the amendment. The order addresses the conditions for late amendment of claim and territorial expansion under R. 263 RoP. |
| 2025-04-11 | UPC_APP_17187/2025 | Munich LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | The Munich Local Division ruled on continuation of written proceedings in the 10x Genomics v. Bruker infringement action, holding that four auxiliary requests is a reasonable number under Rule 30.1(c) RoP and authorising continuation of the written procedure following the EPO Opposition Division's decision maintaining the patent in limited form. |
| 2025-04-09 | UPC_APP_60159/2024 | Munich LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | The Munich Local Division judge-rapporteur issued a procedural order dealing with Meril's applications for cost reimbursement and confidentiality protection (R. 262A RoP) in the Edwards Lifesciences v. Meril proceedings. Following the judge-rapporteur's guidance, Meril withdrew the cost reimbursement applications. The order addressed the scope of confidentiality protection for legal fee invoices and related documents. |
| 2025-04-09 | UPC_APP_59832/2024 | Munich LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | Procedural order by Munich Local Division in Edwards Lifesciences v Meril Life Sciences concerning costs and confidentiality applications arising from a third-party access-to-file application by Erik Krahbichler (KIPA AB). Following withdrawal of Krahbichler's access application, Meril applied for a costs decision. The court dismissed Meril's costs application because a costs decision from the Central Division Paris on a related matter had already been issued, and because proceedings about access applications under R. 262.1(b) do not automatically give rise to separate costs decisions. |
| 2025-03-31 | UPC_APP_7618/2025 | Munich LD | Amend Document | Procedural | Procedural only | The Munich Local Division granted JingAo Solar Co., Ltd.'s application to amend its patent claims under R. 30 RoP in response to counterclaim for revocation, clarifying that the patentee is not restricted to amending only claims directly targeted by invalidity grounds and that EPO-amended claim versions may be introduced into UPC proceedings. |
| 2025-03-20 | ORD_13670/2025 | Munich LD | Generic Order | Procedural | Procedural only | The Munich Local Division issued a one-paragraph order correcting a typographical error in a scheduling order for the oral hearing in the Adeia Guides v. Walt Disney patent infringement case concerning EP 2 793 430. |
| 2025-03-19 | UPC_APP_54919/2024 | Munich LD | Generic application | Costs | Procedural only | The Munich Local Division ruled on a security for costs application by Chint/Astronergy defendants in infringement proceedings brought by JingAo Solar, addressing enforceability of potential cost orders against a Chinese claimant and China's compliance with the Hague Service Convention. |
| 2025-03-19 | UPC_APP_11680/2025 | Munich LD | Application Rop 265 | Procedural | Procedural only | Procedural order by Munich Local Division (UPC_CFI_146/2024, 26 March 2025) granting Medac's application to withdraw its third-party access application, ordering deletion of a confidential Sanofi letter that Medac had uploaded without authorisation, imposing the deletion costs on Medac, and issuing a formal warning to Medac's representative for negligent conduct in uploading a privileged document. The court declined to award costs in the R.262(1)(b) application. |
| 2025-02-26 | UPC_APP_2369/2025 | Munich LD | Application Rop 362 | Procedural | Procedural only | The Munich Local Division issued a corrective order amending the operative part of a prior decision to reflect the substitution of the party in the revocation counterclaim proceedings, and deferred ruling on an application to bar proceedings under Rule 362 RoP until the main hearing. |
| 2025-02-26 | ORD_9486/2025 | Munich LD | Generic Order | Procedural | Procedural only | Procedural order of the Munich Local Division in infringement and revocation counterclaim proceedings concerning a metal sintering preparation patent. The order addresses: (1) correction of a prior order of 2 December 2024 by adding an operative clause ordering the substitution of the counter-claimant in the revocation proceedings from Heraeus Precious Metals to Heraeus Electronics; (2) request for review by the panel under R. 333 RoP; and (3) a claimant application regarding the counterclaim under R. 362 RoP concerning the German designation of the patent. |
| 2025-02-25 | UPC_APP_608/2025 | Munich LD | Application Rop 333 | Procedural | Procedural only | The Munich Local Division panel reviewed the judge-rapporteur's decision to grant only 40% court fee reimbursement (rather than 60% sought by Panasonic) following settlement-based withdrawal of the infringement actions and counterclaims. |
| 2025-02-25 | UPC_APP_619/2025 | Munich LD | Application Rop 333 | Procedural | Costs only | Munich Local Division panel order reviewing (R. 333 RoP) the judge-rapporteur's earlier decision to refund only 40% of court fees following withdrawal of infringement actions and counterclaims (after out-of-court settlement) in patent proceedings by Panasonic Holdings Corporation against Xiaomi entities (UPC_CFI_220/2023) and Guangdong OPPO Mobile (UPC_CFI_221/2023) concerning EP 3 024 163. Panasonic argued a 60% refund was due. The panel confirmed the 40% refund rate, finding the withdrawals occurred after closure of the written procedure (R. 370.9(b)(ii) RoP). |
| 2025-02-25 | UPC_APP_516/2025 | Munich LD | Application Rop 333 | Procedural | Settled | Munich Local Division order reviewing (under R. 333 RoP) an earlier order that granted only 40% court fee reimbursement following the parties' settlement and mutual withdrawal of infringement action and revocation counterclaims. The parties had agreed on settlement in late 2024 after intensive proceedings in a complex SEP case (OPPO vs Panasonic re EP 2 197 132). The claimant challenged the 40% reimbursement, arguing that 60% should apply, contending the case qualified as exceptional under R. 370.9(e) RoP given the extraordinary amount of work the court had performed (far above average). The order addresses what constitutes an 'exceptional case' permitting reduction of the standard fee refund schedule. |
| 2025-02-19 | UPC_CFI_156/2024 | Munich LD | Generic Order | — | Procedural only | The Munich Local Division granted Chainzone Technology's application for access to the court file under Rule 262.1(b) RoP in evidence-preservation proceedings. Access was granted following SWARCO's lack of objection, noting that Chainzone had been admitted as an intervener in parallel proceedings before the Vienna Local Division. |
| 2025-02-19 | UPC_CFI_156/2024 | Munich LD | Application for preserving evidence pursuant to RoP192 | — | Procedural only | Order of the Munich Local Division (full panel) in evidence-preservation proceedings brought by SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme against Yunex GmbH concerning EP 2 643 717 (traffic signal systems). Following resolution of the evidence-preservation application, the court addressed procedural questions: (1) Rule 360 RoP applies by analogy to evidence-preservation proceedings; (2) Rule 198.1 RoP applies by analogy in cases of resolution of an evidence-preservation application; (3) costs are reserved for the main proceedings. The order also addressed standards for specific and substantiated denial of facts (Regel 171.2 and 284 RoP). |
| 2025-02-17 | UPC_APP_66551/2024 | Munich LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | The Munich Local Division rejected Meril's application for rectification of an infringement decision (ORD_598479/2023) under R. 353 RoP, finding that the alleged inaccuracies in the statement of facts did not constitute clerical errors or obvious slips warranting correction. |
| 2025-02-10 | UPC_CFI_640/2024 | Munich LD | Application For Costs | — | Costs only | Decision of the Munich Local Division on a costs assessment (Kostenfestsetzung) following withdrawal of an application for provisional measures by SSAB Europe Oy and SSAB Swedish Steel GmbH against Tiroler Rohre GmbH after the oral hearing. The first-instance court had previously ordered Tiroler Rohre (the unsuccessful PI applicant) to bear costs including preparation of the protective brief. The costs decision addressed the reasonableness of hours billed by claimants' legal representatives, making deductions for excessive time entries across multiple tasks (protective brief, main PI proceedings, e-mail correspondence). Allowable costs were calculated for one attorney-at-law, one patent attorney, and a second patent attorney. |
| 2025-02-08 | UPC_APP_1202/2025 | Munich LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | Procedural order of the Munich Local Division on an application by Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson and Ericsson GmbH under Rule 262A RoP for confidentiality protection of license negotiation information in infringement proceedings by Motorola Mobility LLC concerning EP 3 780 758. The order addresses the scope of access to FRAND negotiation information, in particular whether Lenovo entities should be included in the access circle. |
| 2025-02-05 | UPC_APP_3212/2025 | Munich LD | Generic application | motionName.jurisdictional | Procedural only | The Munich Local Division allowed Ericsson's preliminary objection against Motorola Mobility LLC's counterclaim for revocation of EP 3 780 758, rejecting the counterclaim as inadmissible because the same action between the same parties on the same patent had already been brought before the same division, which is prohibited under Art. 33(2) UPCA by analogy. |
| 2025-02-05 | UPC_APP_368/2025 | Munich LD | Generic application | motionName.jurisdictional | Procedural only | The Munich Local Division allowed a preliminary objection raised by Ericsson against Motorola's counterclaim for revocation, holding that a preliminary objection can be raised against a counterclaim for revocation and that Art. 33(2) UPCA applies when the same parties bring the same action twice before the same division. |
| 2025-01-27 | ORD_4350/2025 | Munich LD | Generic Order | Procedural | Procedural only | Munich Local Division (27 January 2025) procedural order deciding that the panel will hear the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation together, and requesting assignment of a technically qualified judge. |
| 2025-01-21 | UPC_APP_64021/2024 | Munich LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | The Local Division Munich held that where formal service of the provisional measures application under R.274 RoP was impossible, a subsequent decision by default need not be re-attempted under R.274 before proceeding to an order under R.275.2 RoP, in order to preserve the right to effective judicial protection. |
| 2025-01-21 | UPC_APP_64978/2024 | Munich LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | Munich Local Division order on service of a decision by default on a Chinese defendant (Guangzhou Aiyun Yanwu Technology) in provisional measures proceedings brought by air up group GmbH. Service under R. 274 RoP via the Hague Service Convention through Chinese authorities had failed after more than six months (Chinese authority seriously and definitively refusing to process the service). The court held that (1) service rules must be interpreted in accordance with effective legal protection principles, so it must always be possible to establish good service under R. 275.2 RoP; (2) where R. 274 service has failed for the original application, there is no need to attempt R. 274 service again for the subsequent default decision before ordering alternative service under R. 275.2 RoP. |
| 2025-01-10 | UPC_APP_3187/2024 | Munich LD | Infringement Action | Procedural | Costs only | The Munich Local Division ruled on the costs assessment in the Edwards v Meril preliminary injunction proceedings, holding that recoverable costs and disbursements assessed in a costs determination are not subject to interest. |
| 2025-01-09 | ORD_1358/2025 | Munich LD | Decision By Default | Default judgment | Permanent injunction | Decision by default of the Munich Local Division against Guangzhou Aiyun Yanwu Technology Co., Ltd. (a Chinese company that failed to appear), granting air up group GmbH an injunction to cease and desist from offering, placing on the market, using, importing or storing a drinking device infringing EP 3 655 341 (claims 1, 2, 4, 10) throughout all UPC Member States. The defendant is also ordered to pay a penalty of up to EUR 100,000 per day for each infringement and costs of proceedings. |
| 2025-01-09 | UPC_CFI_509/2023 | Munich LD | Decision By Default | — | Infringed | Decision by default of Munich Local Division in air up group GmbH v Guangzhou Aiyun Yanwu Technology Co. Ltd. concerning EP 3 897 305 (drinking device with aroma). The defendant (Chinese company) failed to enter an appearance. The court found infringement and ordered: (A) cease and desist from offering, placing on the market, using, importing or storing the infringing drinking devices and aroma containers across all 17 UPC member states; (B) rendering of accounts; (C) damages; (D) recall, removal and destruction of infringing products; and penalty payments for non-compliance. |
| 2025-01-02 | ORD_48265/2024 | Munich LD | Generic Order | Procedural | Procedural only | The Munich Local Division ordered that the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation (CC_20512/2024) be heard together before the Munich Local Division, and set dates for an interim conference and oral hearing. |
| 2024-12-09 | UPC_APP_64018/2024 | Munich LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | The Local Division Munich held that R.275.1 RoP requires an attempt at alternative service even when formal service under the Hague Convention has been seriously and definitively refused, but that alternative service can be dispensed with only if legally and factually impossible; since no alternative was available, the court was unable to order good service under R.275.2 without first exhausting other options. |
| 2024-12-09 | UPC_APP_64018/2024 | Munich LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | Duplicate document of the same order issued on 9 December 2024 by the Local Division Munich concerning alternative service: the court held that alternative service must be attempted before resorting to R.275.2 RoP, unless no legally and factually possible alternative exists. |
| 2024-12-09 | UPC_CFI_509/2023 | Munich LD | Generic application | — | Procedural only | Munich Local Division held that steps already taken to bring a request for preliminary injunction to defendant's attention constituted good service under R.275.2 RoP, after service via Chinese authorities had failed or been seriously delayed for more than six months. The order established service rules when Hague Convention service fails. |
| 2024-11-15 | UPC_APP_57746/2024 | Munich LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | Procedural order from the Munich Local Division (UPC_CFI_15/2023) rejecting Meril's application to request information from the European Commission regarding antitrust investigations into Edwards Lifesciences' patent filing and litigation strategy. The Court declined to exercise its discretion to seek such information and denied Meril's request to reopen the oral procedure. |
| 2024-11-15 | UPC_APP_56354/2024 | Munich LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | Procedural order from Munich Local Division (full panel) in the infringement proceedings of Edwards Lifesciences Corporation against Meril GmbH and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. concerning EP 3 646 825. Defendants requested the court to ask the European Commission for information about antitrust investigations against Edwards. The panel declined the request at this stage as premature and disproportionate, noting that the merits (infringement and validity) would be assessed at the oral hearing first. |
| 2024-11-15 | UPC_APP_60393/2024 | Munich LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | The Munich Local Division issued a procedural order in the infringement action by Edwards Lifesciences Corporation against Meril GmbH and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. (UPC_CFI_15/2023, EP 3 646 825). The defendants' applications to request information from the European Commission about antitrust investigations involving Edwards were denied. The Court declined to approach the European Commission as this was neither ordered by the Court of its own motion nor within the procedural framework for the specific oral hearing. |
| 2024-11-14 | UPC_APP_43938/2024 | Munich LD | Application RoP262A | Procedural | Procedural only | Procedural order from the Munich Local Division (UPC_CFI_114/2024 and UPC_CFI_448/2024) on Vibrantz's application for confidentiality protection under R. 262A RoP in infringement proceedings by Heraeus Electronics concerning EP 3 215 288. The full panel (including technically qualified judge) addressed the composition of the confidential club, the scope of protected information, and clarifications on which paragraphs of the statement of defence were subject to the confidentiality regime. |
| 2024-10-24 | UPC_APP_33127/2024 | Munich LD | Generic application | Costs | Withdrawn | Munich Local Division decision following the applicant Tiroler Rohre GmbH's withdrawal of an application for provisional measures (R. 265 RoP) after the oral hearing and after the court had indicated concerns about granting the measures. The court dismissed the respondents' (SSAB) opposition to the withdrawal, holding that a legitimate interest in obtaining a substantive decision does not arise merely because the respondents incurred costs defending against the application, even where the applicant has announced forthcoming main proceedings on the same subject matter. The court also declined to order a preliminary costs decision in favour of respondents following withdrawal. |
| 2024-10-11 | UPC_APP_3393/2024 | Munich LD | Procedural Order | Procedural | Costs only | The Munich Local Division issued a costs assessment order following provisional measures proceedings, determining recoverable legal costs for Hanshow's four defendant entities, finding a reasonable time expenditure of up to 150 hours per attorney and 40 hours per patent attorney, resulting in total assessed costs of approximately EUR 154,400. |
| 2024-09-02 | UPC_APP_33757/2024 | Munich LD | Application Rop305 | Procedural | Procedural only | The Munich Local Division considered Panasonic's application to extend the infringement action to add OTECH Germany GmbH as an additional defendant, with defendants opposing the late amendment request under Rule 305 RoP. |
| 2024-08-06 | UPC_APP_25259/2024 | Munich LD | Amend Document | Procedural | Procedural only | Procedural order from Munich Local Division (full panel) in SEP/FRAND infringement proceedings concerning EP 3 780 758. Motorola Mobility LLC (claimant) applied for leave to amend its claim to add a request for an injunction. The order addresses whether Motorola could have made the amendment earlier with reasonable diligence. Application denied: the panel found no justification for the late amendment, as the relevant circumstances had been known to Motorola since at least December 2023. No ruling on patent infringement or validity. |