| 2025-07-24 | UPC_CoA_521/2025 | Court of Appeal | Petition for review of Registrar's decision | motionName.registrar_review | Dismissed | The President of the Court of Appeal dismissed the petition for review of the Registrar's decision refusing to enter the anonymised applicant on the UPC representative list. The applicant held a certificate from Politecnico di Milano ('Certificato di superamento dell'esame conclusivo del Corso di Proprietà Industriale - Brevetti') dated 9 June 2023. This course was listed in Rule 12.1(a)(xii) EPLC Rules but required filing within one year of UPC Agreement entry into force (by 3 June 2024). The applicant filed on 27 March 2025. A clerical error in the applicant's paralegal department did not constitute sufficient justification for re-establishment of rights. |
| 2025-07-24 | UPC_CoA_347/2025 | Court of Appeal | Petition for review of Registrar's decision | motionName.registrar_review | Dismissed | The President of the Court of Appeal dismissed the petition for review of the Registrar's decision refusing to enter the anonymised applicant (Italian patent attorney) on the UPC representative list. The applicant held a CEIPI diploma obtained 28 January 2022 (before CEIPI accreditation) and filed on 21 February 2025, after the 3 June 2024 deadline under Rule 12.1 EPLC Rules. Health-related circumstances (sick leave from April 2024 to January 2025 following an accident) did not justify re-establishment of rights, as the applicant had not demonstrated inability to file despite assistance being available. The one-year Rule 12.1 transitional period was found not to violate principles of equality and proportionality. |
| 2025-07-24 | UPC_CoA_300/2025 | Court of Appeal | Petition for review of Registrar's decision | motionName.registrar_review | Dismissed | The President of the Court of Appeal dismissed the petition for review of the Registrar's decision refusing to enter the anonymised applicant on the UPC representative list. The applicant held a CEIPI diploma on 'Patent litigation in Europe' obtained on 8 July 2022 (before CEIPI was accredited by the UPC Administrative Committee in November 2023), which qualified under Rule 12.1(a) EPLC Rules but required filing within one year of UPC Agreement entry into force (by 3 June 2024). The applicant filed on 15 November 2024, after the deadline. The President found no 'de facto continuity' between Rule 12 and Rule 1 EPLC Rules that would give the accreditation retroactive effect. |
| 2025-07-24 | UPC_CoA_24/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 265 | — | Settled | Decision of the Court of Appeal dated 24 July 2025 granting withdrawal of all proceedings in the appeal by HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY (HPDC) and the cross-appeal by LAMA FRANCE, following an out-of-court settlement. The underlying Paris Local Division decision of 13 November 2024 had found EP 2 089 230 invalid and EP 1 737 669 infringed by LAMA. Both parties withdrew their appeals and the proceedings were declared closed. A 60% reimbursement of court fees before the Court of Appeal was ordered for both parties. No cost decision was required as both parties agreed. |
| 2025-07-09 | APL_23095/2025 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal reversed the first-instance order and ordered JingAo Solar Co., Ltd. (a Chinese company) to provide €200,000 security for costs within one month, finding that the lack of EU/EEA recognition and enforcement guarantees for a cost award against a non-EU party is a relevant factor justifying security under the rules on security for costs. |
| 2025-07-09 | UPC_CoA_430/2025 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | — | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal ordered Chint New Energy Technology Co., Ltd. to provide security for costs of EUR 200,000 in an infringement appeal after finding that Chint, a Chinese company, failed to demonstrate sufficient financial means. The Court upheld an appeal against the Munich Local Division's partial refusal to order the other five defendants to provide security, confirming the original grant of security against Chint while declining to extend it to the other co-defendants. |
| 2025-07-03 | UPC_APP_25615/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 265 | Procedural | Withdrawn | The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal by Advanced Bionics AG of both its revocation action and the counterclaim for revocation against MED-EL, with both parties' consent, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered 60% reimbursement of court fees to each side. |
| 2025-07-03 | UPC_APP_25616/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 265 | Procedural | Withdrawn | The Court of Appeal ruled on Advanced Bionics' withdrawal of two appeals, holding that separate court fees are required for appeals against revocation decisions and counterclaim for revocation decisions even when issued in a single document by the Court of First Instance. |
| 2025-07-03 | UPC_APP_23563/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 265 | Procedural | Withdrawn | The Court of Appeal allowed the withdrawal of an appeal by the anonymous appellant against the Brussels Local Division's decision dismissing infringement claims against OrthoApnea S.L. and Vivisol B BV concerning EP 2 331 036, ordered the appellant to bear OrthoApnea's appeal costs, and referred the quantum of costs to a separate costs procedure. |
| 2025-07-03 | UPC_CoA_221/2025 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | — | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal ruled on the number of US attorneys permitted to access confidential information in infringement proceedings by NST against Qualcomm. The court ordered that only one trusted US attorney (rather than multiple as NST requested) be granted access to confidential information, balancing NST's right to an effective remedy against Qualcomm's legitimate expectation of adequate confidentiality protection. |
| 2025-06-23 | UPC_APP_22747/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 365 | Procedural | Settled | The Court of Appeal confirmed the settlement agreement between Plant-e Knowledge B.V./Plant-e B.V. and Arkyne Technologies S.L. in both the infringement appeal and the counterclaim for revocation appeal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 60% of court fees to Arkyne. |
| 2025-06-23 | APL_14947/2025 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Dismissed | Court of Appeal (Panel with President Grabinski) dismissed Sumi Agro Limited and Sumi Agro Europe Limited's appeal against a Munich Local Division order that had refused to revoke provisional measures granted to Syngenta Limited concerning EP 2 152 073 (a crop protection patent). The appeal concerned the timing of payment of court fees: the Court of Appeal held that fees are considered paid on time when a bank transfer order is given at the time of filing, not when the bank account actually receives the funds. On the merits, the court confirmed the first-instance cost decision. Sumi Agro was ordered to bear the costs of the appeal. |
| 2025-06-19 | UPC_APP_25965/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 360 | Procedural | Settled | Procedural order by the Court of Appeal (UPC_CoA_170/2025, 18 June 2025) closing the appeal proceedings following an out-of-court settlement between ILME and PHOENIX CONTACT. The parties had settled before the CoA issued a substantive decision on ILME's appeal against dismissal of its preliminary objection. The main infringement action at first instance had already been withdrawn. No costs were claimed by either party. |
| 2025-06-06 | UPC_APP_23407/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 223 | Procedural | Procedural only | Procedural order from the Court of Appeal (UPC_CoA_434/2025) denying NUC Electronics' application for suspensive effect of its appeal against the Mannheim Local Division's infringement judgment (UPC_CFI_162/2024) concerning EP 2 028 981 in favour of Hurom. NUC was required to disclose information about its customers and distribution channels; it argued for suspension pending appeal. The Court held that information disclosure orders should only be suspended in exceptional circumstances, and NUC had not shown its appeal would become devoid of purpose without suspensive effect. |
| 2025-06-02 | APL_8790/2025 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Dismissed | The Court of Appeal dismissed XSYS's appeal against rejection of a preliminary objection challenging the UPC's temporal competence in infringement proceedings brought by Esko-Graphics Imaging GmbH (UPC_CoA_156/2025). The Court established that the UPC has competence over acts of infringement occurring before the entry into force of the UPCA, as Art. 32 UPCA contains no temporal limitation. This does not violate the non-retroactivity principle under Art. 28 VCLT. During the transitional period, UPC and national courts have concurrent competence unless the patent is opted out. The Court also dismissed XSYS's request for a CJEU preliminary reference and for a stay of proceedings. In the case of an opt-out withdrawal, the UPC is competent also for acts occurring between the opt-out and withdrawal dates. |
| 2025-06-02 | APL_8790/2025 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Dismissed | Court of Appeal dismissed XSYS's appeal against the CFI's rejection of a preliminary objection based on alleged lack of UPC jurisdiction for acts predating the UPCA's entry into force. The CoA held that Art.32(1) UPCA has no temporal limitation and that the UPC has jurisdiction from the date of filing of the action, including for alleged infringements occurring before the UPCA came into force. A valid opt-out withdrawal brings the patent back under full UPC jurisdiction for all infringement periods. This is the German-language version of the decision. |
| 2025-05-28 | UPC_APP_22758/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 265 | Procedural | Withdrawn | The Court of Appeal permitted NanoString Technologies Europe Limited's withdrawal of the revocation action (UPC_CoA_808/2024 / ACT_551180/2023 / UPC_CFI_252/2023) against Harvard's EP 2 794 928, following NanoString's application filed on 14 May 2025. Harvard agreed to the withdrawal and did not oppose. The withdrawal was permitted as Harvard had no legitimate interest in the action being decided. No costs order was issued. The proceedings were declared closed. |
| 2025-05-28 | UPC_APP_24663/2025 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | Costs | Costs only | The Court of Appeal issued an order granting Harvard's application for reimbursement of 60% of the court fees paid for the appeal (UPC_CoA_808/2024) following NanoString's withdrawal of the revocation action. Harvard had paid the appeal court fees as appellant; NanoString had withdrawn the underlying action on 14 May 2025 before closure of the written procedure. The Court ordered reimbursement of 60% of Harvard's appeal court fees under R. 370.9(b)(i) RoP. |
| 2025-05-26 | UPC_CoA_1/2025 | Court of Appeal | — | Procedural | Injunction denied | The Court of Appeal denied the application by Chainzone Technology (Foshan) Co., Ltd. (intervener/defendant) for suspensive effect of its appeal against the infringement order of the Vienna Local Division (15 January 2025) in proceedings between SWARCO FUTURIT and STRABAG. Chainzone failed to demonstrate manifest errors in the first-instance decision concerning EP 2 643 717 (a colour-mixing convergent optical system). The order confirming the injunction against STRABAG therefore remained enforceable. This is the German language version; an English translation exists (see finalorderuspensiveeffect EN.pdf). Note: the referenced case number in the parties section is UPC_CoA_70/2025 (Strabag appeal) and UPC_CoA_1/2025 (Chainzone appeal). |
| 2025-05-26 | UPC_CoA_1/2025 | Court of Appeal | — | Procedural | Injunction denied | The Court of Appeal denied the application by Chainzone Technology (Foshan) Co., Ltd. for suspensive effect of its appeal against the infringement order of the Vienna Local Division concerning EP 2 643 717 (colour-mixing convergent optical system / LED optics). Chainzone failed to demonstrate that the first-instance decision was manifestly erroneous. The enforcement of the injunction against STRABAG therefore continued. Key headnotes: application for suspensive effect must itself enable the respondent to prepare and the court to decide; suspensive effect requires manifest error in the impugned order; a company director is not an 'intermediary' under Art. 63 UPCA merely by reason of their directorship; security for enforcement under R.352.1 must be ordered at the time of the decision. This is the English translation of finalordersuspensiveeffect.DE_.pdf. |
| 2025-05-20 | UPC_APP_23094/2025 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | Court of Appeal order on CHINT's application for suspensive effect of a first-instance order and expedition of appeal proceedings. JingAo had obtained an order from Munich Local Division requiring CHINT (and five other defendants) to provide security for costs of EUR 200,000. CHINT appealed and sought suspension of the security obligation and expedited review. The order addresses the conditions for granting suspensive effect and expedited proceedings on appeal. |
| 2025-04-22 | UPC_APP_16448/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 265 | Procedural | Procedural only | Court of Appeal (Panel 1a) order on Amazon's appeal against a Munich Local Division order refusing Amazon's R. 190 RoP request for production of unredacted Nokia documents in infringement proceedings concerning EP 2 661 892. The appeal became moot (Erledigung der Hauptsache, R. 360 RoP) following a development in the main proceedings, and the Court issued a procedural order addressing costs in the now-resolved appeal. |
| 2025-04-22 | UPC_APP_16448/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 265 | Procedural | Dismissed | Court of Appeal dismissed Amazon's appeal against the Munich Local Division's refusal to disclose unredacted documents held by Nokia under Art.59 UPCA and R.190 RoP (evidence production). The appeal became devoid of purpose after the underlying infringement proceedings (UPC_CFI_399/2023) were declared closed following Nokia's withdrawal of the infringement action. The appeal was disposed of under R.360 RoP. |
| 2025-04-18 | UPC_APP_9095/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 223 | Procedural | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal refused Meril's application for suspensive effect of their appeal against the Munich Local Division's infringement decision in favour of Edwards Lifesciences, meaning the first-instance judgment remained enforceable pending appeal. |
| 2025-04-18 | UPC_APP_13022/2025 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | Costs | Costs only | Order from the Court of Appeal (UPC_CoA_520/2024) on Scandit's application for 20% reimbursement of court fees under R. 370.11 RoP following the withdrawal of Hand Held Products' appeal against a preliminary injunction. The CoA had previously granted a PI at first instance against Scandit for indirect infringement of EP 3 866 051; Hand Held Products later withdrew its application for provisional measures and the appeal proceedings were declared closed. The Court decided on whether the withdrawal before closure of oral proceedings qualified for fee reimbursement. |
| 2025-04-18 | UPC_APP_13022/2025 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | Costs | Costs only | Application by Scandit AG for 20% reimbursement of court fees following withdrawal of Hand Held Products' provisional measures application was dismissed. The CoA held that the withdrawal of the provisional measures application occurred after the closure of oral proceedings (the oral hearing had already taken place), so the 20% reimbursement threshold under R.370.9(b)(iii) RoP was not met. The provisional measures proceedings had been declared closed after Hand Held withdrew the application. |
| 2025-04-01 | UPC_CoA_80/2025 | Court of Appeal | Decision By Default | — | Dismissed | Decision by default issued by the President of the Court of Appeal rejecting NJOY Netherlands B.V.'s appeal as inadmissible under Rule 229.4 RoP. NJOY had appealed the Paris Central Division's dismissal of its revocation action against EP 2 875 740 held by VMR Products LLC. After being invited to pay the EUR 20,000 appeal fee, NJOY explicitly informed the Court it would not pay because it did not wish to pursue the appeal, and expressly waived its right to be heard. The appeal was accordingly rejected as inadmissible for failure to pay the required fee. |
| 2025-03-31 | UPC_APP_12551/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 265 | Procedural | Withdrawn | The Court of Appeal allowed Hand Held Products to withdraw its application for provisional measures (pending appeal) after Scandit consented, terminated the appeal proceedings accordingly, and ordered each party to bear its own costs as no costs request was made by either side. |
| 2025-03-28 | UPC_CoA_170/2025 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | — | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal (standing judge) issued a procedural order partially granting Phoenix Contact GmbH & Co. KG's request for an extension of the 15-day deadline to file its response to ILME GmbH's appeal against the Munich Local Division's rejection of ILME's preliminary objection (R. 19 RoP). The extension was granted for 10 days (instead of the requested three weeks), balancing efficiency with Phoenix's need to respond to complex arguments. |
| 2025-03-24 | UPC_APP_13834/2025 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | Court of Appeal refused Amazon's application for leave to file additional written submissions in the appeal proceedings. The Court confirmed that the written procedure in appeal is limited to the Statement of Grounds of Appeal and the Statement of Response; additional grounds outside the prescribed time limit are inadmissible under R. 233.3 RoP. |
| 2025-03-24 | UPC_APP_13834/2025 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | German-language signed version of the Court of Appeal procedural order (24 March 2025) refusing Amazon's application for additional written submissions in the Nokia v. Amazon appeal proceedings concerning EP 2 661 892. |
| 2025-03-11 | UPC_APP_6818/2025 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | Costs | Costs only | The Court of Appeal ruled on multiple applications for refund of court fees related to three separate appeal proceedings between 10x Genomics/Harvard and Vizgen, determining the applicable court fee refund rules following the conclusion of those appeal proceedings. |
| 2025-03-11 | UPC_APP_6815/2025 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | Costs | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal issued an order granting 10x Genomics's applications for partial refund of court fees following withdrawal of three appeals (APL_59634/2024, APL_61301/2024, APL_26/2025) against Hamburg Local Division orders concerning EP 4 108 782 (10x v. Vizgen). Court fees were refunded at 60% (for the appeal withdrawn before close of written procedure) and 20% (for appeals withdrawn before close of oral procedure) pursuant to R. 370.9(b) RoP. |
| 2025-03-11 | UPC_APP_6812/2025 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | Costs | Procedural only | Court of Appeal order granting reimbursement of court fees to 10x Genomics and Harvard following withdrawal of three appeals against orders in the Hamburg Local Division proceedings against Vizgen (EP 4 108 782). 60% reimbursement granted for the appeal withdrawn before closure of written proceedings; 20% for each of the two appeals withdrawn before closure of oral proceedings. |
| 2025-03-05 | UPC_APP_6378/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 265 | Procedural | Withdrawn | The Court of Appeal granted 10x Genomics and Harvard College's requests to withdraw three pending appeals against discovery/document production orders issued by the Hamburg Local Division in the infringement proceedings against Vizgen Inc., with no costs order by agreement of both parties. |
| 2025-03-05 | UPC_APP_6377/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 265 | Procedural | Withdrawn | Order of the Court of Appeal permitting the withdrawal of three appeals (APL_59634/2024, APL_61301/2024, APL_26/2025) filed by 10x Genomics, Inc. and President and Fellows of Harvard College against orders of the Hamburg Local Division concerning security for costs in infringement proceedings against Vizgen, Inc. Both parties consented and waived costs decisions. The appeal proceedings were declared closed. |
| 2025-03-05 | UPC_APP_6376/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 265 | Procedural | Withdrawn | Order of the Court of Appeal (Panel 1a) granting three applications by 10x Genomics and President and Fellows of Harvard College for withdrawal of three pending appeals (UPC_CoA_654/2024, UPC_CoA_700/2024, and UPC_CoA_1/2025) against Hamburg Local Division orders in the infringement proceedings against Vizgen Inc. The three appeals had been filed in connection with various case management orders made by the Hamburg Local Division in the main UPC_CFI_22/2023 proceedings. All three appeals were permitted to be withdrawn. |
| 2025-03-03 | UPC_CoA_805/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Withdrawn | The Court of Appeal (Panel 1b: Grabinski, Gougé, Germano) permitted Curio Bioscience's withdrawal of its appeal (APL_65956/2024) against the Düsseldorf Local Division's order requiring Curio to provide security for costs of EUR 200,000 in the infringement action by 10x Genomics concerning EP 2 697 391. 10x Genomics did not object to the withdrawal. Proceedings declared closed; no cost decision needed. |
| 2025-02-24 | UPC_CoA_540/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | PI denied | Court of Appeal rejected Biolitec's appeal against the Düsseldorf Local Division's refusal to grant a preliminary injunction. The CoA upheld the first-instance order, finding that Biolitec had not demonstrated the necessity of provisional measures: proceedings on the merits could be awaited; the status quo on the market had existed for years before the patent was granted; and Biolitec failed to demonstrate sufficient evidence of urgency regarding stocking or tender-related harm. Biolitec was ordered to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings. |
| 2025-02-24 | UPC_CoA_540/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | PI denied | German-language signed version of the Court of Appeal order rejecting Biolitec's appeal in the provisional measures proceedings against Light Guide Optics and SIA LIGHTGUIDE International. Identical in substance to the English version: appeal rejected, Biolitec ordered to bear costs. The provisional injunction was denied because proceedings on the merits could be awaited and necessity was not demonstrated. |
| 2025-02-12 | APL_58177/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | Court of Appeal Panel 1a order on the scope of confidentiality protection (R. 262A RoP) in proceedings by Daedalus Prime LLC (appellant/claimant) against Xiaomi entities, with MediaTek as intervener, concerning EP 2 792 100. The order addresses whether US attorneys (non-EU, non-UPCA Art. 48 representatives) may be granted full access to confidential information. The Court held that R. 262A.6 RoP does not require persons accessing confidential information to be employees or Art. 48 UPCA representatives; access depends on necessity and trustworthiness assessed case by case. |
| 2025-02-11 | UPC_CoA_563/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Dismissed | Court of Appeal rejected Suinno's appeal against a first-instance procedural order in the infringement action Suinno brought against Microsoft before the Paris Central Division. The appeal was rejected. |
| 2025-01-20 | ORD_3182/2025 | Court of Appeal | Generic Order | Procedural | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal issued a procedural order in the Amazon v Nokia proceedings (UPC_CoA_835/2024) on Amazon's application under R. 262.2 RoP for confidential treatment of parts of its appeal pleadings. The appeal relates to Amazon's challenge to an order of the Munich Local Division that denied disclosure of unredacted documents and information. The order governs which information in the appeal and statement of grounds may be designated confidential and restricted from public access. |
| 2025-01-20 | ORD_3182/2025 | Court of Appeal | Generic Order | Procedural | Procedural only | Court of Appeal procedural order on Amazon's application under R. 262.2 RoP, ordering confidentiality classification of information (including licence agreement contents, RAND negotiation details, and business model information) contained in Amazon's appeal in the Nokia v. Amazon proceedings concerning EP 2 661 892. |
| 2025-01-20 | UPC_APP_68644/2024 | Court of Appeal | Application RoP262A | Procedural | Procedural only | Court of Appeal granted Amazon's application under R. 262A RoP, ordering restricted access to confidential information (identity of licensees and content of Nokia's licence agreements) contained in Amazon's appeal and Statement of Grounds of Appeal in the Nokia v. Amazon proceedings concerning EP 2 661 892. |
| 2025-01-20 | UPC_CoA_835/2024 | Court of Appeal | Application RoP262A | — | Procedural only | Procedural order of the Court of Appeal dated 20 January 2025 on Amazon's R. 262A RoP application for confidentiality protection regarding Nokia's licensing and licence-agreement information disclosed in infringement proceedings (Nokia v. Amazon, UPC_CFI_399/2023). The CoA granted Amazon's request for confidentiality, ordering that certain grey-highlighted passages and 'strictly confidential' annexes regarding Nokia's licensee identities and licence agreement terms be restricted in access to designated persons only, beyond the CFI's existing classification. |
| 2025-01-15 | UPC_APP_68614/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | Procedural | Withdrawn | The Court of Appeal allowed Avago's withdrawal of its infringement appeal and Tesla's withdrawal of the counterclaims for revocation following a settlement, ordered 60% reimbursement of court fees, and declared all three appeal proceedings closed. |
| 2025-01-15 | UPC_APP_66724/2024 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 265 | Procedural | Withdrawn | Decision of the Court of Appeal (Panel 1) permitting withdrawal of Avago's appeal and counterclaim for revocation against a Hamburg Local Division decision in which the infringement action had been dismissed and the patent partially revoked. The Court of Appeal granted leave for withdrawal under Rule 265 RoP in appeal proceedings, holding that withdrawal is possible until the final decision becomes legally binding. As a consequence of the withdrawal of the revocation counterclaim, the pending requests to amend the patent became moot. The court also addressed reimbursement of court fees following the withdrawal. |
| 2025-01-08 | UPC_APP_67902/2024 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop313 | Procedural | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal allowed MediaTek Inc.'s application to intervene as a party in the appeal proceedings (Daedalus Prime LLC v. Xiaomi) concerning an order restricting access to confidential information, and instructed MediaTek and Xiaomi to coordinate their submissions for the oral hearing. |
| 2024-12-20 | APL_40470/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | PI denied | The Court of Appeal dismissed Alexion's appeal against the Hamburg Local Division's refusal to grant provisional measures against Samsung Bioepis regarding patent EP 3167888. The Court addressed the interpretation of patent claims containing linguistic errors and the relevance of prosecution history. |