| 2026-02-13 | UPC_CFI_770/2024 | Milan LD | Infringement Action | Procedural | Procedural only | The Milan Local Division issued a post-interim-conference order in Pirelli v. Sichuan Yuanxing Rubber, resolving preliminary objections (with SYR withdrawing a service objection) and addressing admissibility of photographs and product samples from the earlier seizure. |
| 2026-01-28 | UPC_CFI_727/2024 | Milan LD | Infringement Action | Procedural | Procedural only | The Milan Local Division issued a post-interim-conference order in Agathon AG v. Intercom s.r.l. and KNARR Vertriebs GmbH, setting out rulings on admissibility of technical drawings filed by the claimant and the handling of conditional auxiliary requests per R. 30.1 RoP. |
| 2026-01-08 | UPC_CFI_377/2025 | Milan LD | Infringement Action | Procedural | Procedural only | The Milan Local Division partially granted Primetals Technologies' application for an order to produce evidence under Art. 59 UPCA / R. 190 RoP, requiring Danieli to disclose documents relating to alleged infringement of EP 2 624 977 in steel coiling installations supplied to Hoa Phat Group in Vietnam. |
| 2025-12-12 | UPC_CFI_146/2024 | Munich LD | Infringement Action | Procedural | Procedural only | The Munich Local Division issued a rectification order under Rule 353 RoP correcting factual errors in a prior decision in the Sanofi v. Stada/Dr Reddy/Zentiva proceedings, including corrections regarding marketing authorisation holders and expert witness attribution. |
| 2025-12-12 | UPC_CFI_146/2024 | Munich LD | Infringement Action | Infringement merits | Revoked | The Munich Local Division found patent EP 2 493 466 (relating to cabazitaxel pharmaceutical formulations) invalid for lack of inventive step in infringement proceedings brought by Sanofi against STADA, Dr. Reddy's and Zentiva entities, dismissing the infringement claims. |
| 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. |
| 2025-11-19 | UPC_CFI_802/2024 | Milan LD | Infringement Action | Infringement merits | Infringed | The Milan Local Division issued a default judgment against the defendants (Gastroteam Abbe AB and Marciuliano Attrezzature) for infringement of Morello Forni's patent rights, ordering an injunction and information disclosure regarding the 'Pizza Former' machine, as defendants failed to participate in proceedings. |
| 2025-11-18 | UPC_CFI_187/2024 | The Hague LD | Infringement Action | Infringement merits | Not infringed | The Hague Local Division decided in proceedings on infringement and counterclaim for revocation concerning Advanced Cell Diagnostics' RNAscope technology patents (EP 1 910 572 and EP 2 500 439) against Molecular Instruments; the decision addressed novelty, inventive step, and infringement of in situ hybridisation method claims. |
| 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. |
| 2025-10-27 | UPC_CFI_178/2024 | Milan LD | Infringement Action | Infringement merits | Revoked | The Milan Local Division revoked EP 2 726 230 B1 (mesh production method and device) in its entirety following the defendants' counterclaim, dismissed the application to amend the patent, and dismissed the infringement action; claimant Progress Maschinen bore the majority of costs. |
| 2025-10-27 | UPC_CFI_178/2024 | Milan LD | Infringement Action | Procedural | Procedural only | The Milan Local Division issued a rectification order under R. 353 RoP correcting an inaccuracy in the header of its 27 October 2025 decision by adding the full list of defendants' legal representatives (Studio Legale Costa-Creta). |
| 2025-10-09 | UPC_CFI_132/2024 | Mannheim LD | Infringement Action | Infringement merits | Not infringed | The Mannheim Local Division dismissed both the infringement action by Total Semiconductor LLC against Texas Instruments entities concerning EP 2 746 967 (DVFS processor) and the counterclaim for revocation, finding no infringement due to insufficiently substantiated assertions and the patent remaining valid. |
| 2025-10-07 | UPC_CFI_226/2025 | Milan LD | Application Rop 360 | Procedural | Settled | The Milan Local Division closed the infringement proceedings between Hypertherm Inc. and Tec.Mo. s.r.l. under R. 360 RoP after the parties reached a settlement agreement, with costs compensated between the parties and partial court fee reimbursement ordered. |
| 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. |
| 2025-09-15 | UPC_CFI_374/2024 | Munich LD | Infringement Action | Procedural | Procedural only | Munich Local Division issued a procedural order in Sanofi's infringement action relating to multiple sets of generic pharmaceutical defendants (Accord, STADA, Dr Reddy's, Zentiva) concerning EP 2 493 466. The order addressed case management scheduling matters across four related infringement actions. |
| 2025-09-09 | UPC_APP_33377/2025 | Milan LD | Application Rop 265 | Procedural | Settled | The Milan Local Division allowed mutual withdrawal of all claims in the Oerlikon Textile v. Himson Engineering infringement action (UPC_CFI_240/2023) following a settlement reached by both parties, with costs fully offset. |
| 2025-09-05 | UPC_CFI_202/2025 | Milan LD | Application Rop 365 | — | Settled | Milan Local Division confirmed the settlement agreement between Edwards Lifesciences and the respondents (Sintec and Value Med) in provisional measures proceedings concerning EP 3 646 825. The Court confirmed the settlement under Art. 79 UPCA and R.365 RoP, making it enforceable as a final decision. The request for reimbursement of 60% of court fees was dismissed. |
| 2025-08-01 | UPC_CFI_40/2025 | Hamburg LD | Application For Costs | — | Costs only | Decision of Hamburg Local Division in Samsung Bioepis NL B.V. v Alexion Pharmaceuticals (EP 3 167 888) assessing the costs of appeal proceedings following the Court of Appeal's rejection (20 December 2024) of Alexion's appeal against the dismissal of its application for provisional measures against Samsung Bioepis' Epysqli biosimilar. The court allowed the costs for UPC representatives and patent attorneys but reduced costs claimed for UK solicitors whose involvement (at higher cost than the actual UPC representatives) was not demonstrated to be necessary. |
| 2025-08-01 | UPC_APP_43786/2024 | Hamburg LD | Generic application | Costs | Costs only | Hamburg Local Division (1 August 2025) issued a costs decision following the dismissal of Alexion Pharmaceuticals' provisional measures application against Samsung Bioepis. The court assessed Samsung Bioepis' recoverable litigation costs, disallowing the costs of two UK solicitors as disproportionate but allowing the costs of the private expert Prof. Kontermann and reasonable travel expenses. |
| 2025-07-31 | ACT_953/2024 | Nordic-Baltic RD | Infringement Action | Infringement merits | Infringed | Decision by Nordic-Baltic Regional Division (UPC_CFI_9/2024, 31 July 2025) finding Sioen NV liable for infringement of EP 2 186 428 B2 (protective workwear / clothing) across 16 UPC member states. An injunction was granted, product recall and destruction ordered, information on sales required, damages declared owing, and EUR 50,000 awarded as interim legal costs. All other requests were dismissed. |
| 2025-07-29 | UPC_APP_24515/2025 | Milan LD | Generic application | Costs | Costs only | The Local Division Milan dismissed Oerlikon's application under R.353 RoP to rectify an alleged clerical error in a costs decision, finding that the EUR 80,000 total in the operative part was correct and consistent with the reasoning, and that the phrase referencing an additional EUR 20,000 was merely a drafting slip that did not alter the actual intended amount. |
| 2025-07-17 | UPC_CFI_145/2024 | Munich LD | Generic Order | — | Procedural only | Procedural order of the Munich Local Division (presiding judge Zigann) following the interim conference of 17 July 2025 in four consolidated pharmaceutical patent infringement actions by Sanofi and related entities against generics companies (Accord Healthcare, STADA, Dr. Reddy's, Zentiva) concerning EP 2 493 466. Points addressed: EPO Board of Appeal had upheld the patent but had not yet published its written reasoned decision; French parallel first-instance decisions invalidating the French designation were under appeal; defendants wished to comment on EPO BoA written reasons within three weeks of availability. No substantive infringement ruling. |
| 2025-07-15 | UPC_APP_24226/2025 | Milan LD | Application Rop 365 | Procedural | Settled | Milan Local Division received Pirelli Tyre S.p.A.'s application under Rule 365 RoP to record a settlement agreement with Kingtyre Deutschland GmbH (effective 25 February 2025) in an infringement action over EP 2 519 412. The proceedings against Kingtyre Deutschland were to be withdrawn pursuant to the settlement; the settlement amount was to remain confidential. The case against Tianjin Kingtyre Group Co., Ltd. (no settlement) continues with all of Pirelli's claims maintained. |
| 2025-07-14 | UPC_APP_26266/2025 | Milan LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | The Milan Local Division rejected Sichuan Yuanxing Rubber's application for re-establishment of rights under Rule 320 RoP to file a late request for review of the provisional seizure order executed at the EICMA trade fair, finding that Pirelli had properly served the order at the time of execution despite the respondent's refusal to accept service. |
| 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. |
| 2025-06-20 | UPC_APP_22313/2025 | Milan LD | Application Rop 333 | Procedural | Procedural only | Milan Local Division panel dismissed Ericsson's application for review (Rule 333 RoP) of the judge-rapporteur's order refusing to impose an 'external eyes only' confidentiality regime for license agreements submitted as FRAND evidence. The panel held that Ericsson failed to substantiate the specific antitrust risk from allowing one Asustek employee access to the documents. Leave to appeal was granted to allow the Court of Appeal to set a standard on external-eyes-only confidentiality regimes in SEP/FRAND cases. |
| 2025-06-02 | UPC_APP_25321/2025 | Milan LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | The Milan Local Division granted a joint request by Dainese S.p.A., Alpinestars S.p.A. and associated defendants to stay proceedings relating to EP 3 498 117 pending the outcome of EPO opposition proceedings, while continuing the proceedings in respect of EP 4 072 364, applying R. 295(d) RoP and Art. 43 UPCA. |
| 2025-05-19 | UPC_CFI_342/2025 | Milan LD | Application for preserving evidence pursuant to RoP192 | Evidence | Procedural only | The Milan Local Division granted 3V Sigma S.p.A. an ex parte order for preservation of evidence against ACEF S.p.A. and ACEF S.r.l. concerning EP 3 275 872 and EP 3 275 426 (triazine UV stabilisers / cosmetic UV filter compositions). |
| 2025-05-14 | UPC_CFI_132/2024 | Mannheim LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | Procedural order in infringement action by TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR against Texas Instruments entities. Decision on Claimant's request for a further written submission under Rules 12.5 and 36 RoP in response to Defendants' rejoinder: final decision partially postponed to the oral hearing; request otherwise rejected. The court found no new arguments by Defendants requiring a response beyond what was already permitted. |
| 2025-05-09 | UPC_CFI_241/2023 | Milan LD | Generic Order | Costs | Costs only | The Milan Local Division issued a costs decision pursuant to Rule 156 RoP following a prior merits judgment (ORD_598484/2023) in favour of Oerlikon Textile against Bhagat Textile Engineers for infringement of EP 2 145 848. The court awarded Oerlikon EUR 80,000 in recoverable representation costs (EUR 65,000 for the main action and EUR 15,000 for the preservation of evidence proceedings), reduced from the claimed EUR 120,425.28, on the basis that the case was relatively straightforward with no validity or infringement dispute by the defendant. |
| 2025-05-08 | UPC_CFI_145/2024 | Munich LD | Generic Order | — | Procedural only | Procedural order in consolidated Sanofi v. Accord Healthcare / Dr Reddy's / betapharm infringement proceedings at Munich Local Division. The judge-rapporteur declined to dispose of the case summarily and determined it would be more efficient to await the outcome of pending EPO Board of Appeal proceedings concerning the patent before deciding difficult substantive issues at an oral hearing. |
| 2025-05-08 | UPC_CFI_145/2024 | Munich LD | Generic Order | — | Procedural only | Procedural order from Munich Local Division dated 8 May 2025 (unredacted version) in the consolidated infringement proceedings of Sanofi against Accord Healthcare, Stada, Dr. Reddy's and Zentiva regarding EP 2 493 466. The order sets the timetable for further proceedings, confirms the interim conferences (including one focused on EPO BoA appeal outcome on 17 July 2025), and sets the main interim conference for 12 September 2025 and oral hearing dates for 14–17 October 2025. The order also addresses outstanding procedural issues including Zentiva's request to strike Malta from the revocation request, and provides guidance on the panel's preliminary views on damages calculation and infringement. |
| 2025-05-07 | UPC_APP_12517/2025 | Milan LD | Application Rop 265 | Procedural | Withdrawn | Decision of the Milan Local Division permitting Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson to withdraw its infringement action against Digital River Ireland Ltd. (which is in insolvency proceedings in Ireland), and permitting Digital River to withdraw its counterclaim for revocation. The Court ordered each party to bear its own costs for the infringement proceedings. Digital River was ordered to bear costs of the counterclaim proceedings and the stay application (EUR 5,500). |
| 2025-05-07 | UPC_APP_12519/2025 | Milan LD | Application Rop 265 | Procedural | Withdrawn | Milan Local Division (7 May 2025) allowed Ericsson's withdrawal of the infringement action against Digital River Ireland Ltd. (in insolvency) and Digital River's withdrawal of its counterclaim for revocation, while the proceedings continued against Asustek and Arvato. Each party bears its own costs in the withdrawal proceedings. |
| 2025-04-28 | UPC_APP_5416/2025 | Milan LD | Application RoP262A | Procedural | Procedural only | The Milan Local Division issued a procedural order on multiple Rule 262A RoP applications by ASUSTeK and other defendants for confidentiality protection of their business documents in the Ericsson v. ASUSTeK patent infringement action concerning EP 3 076 673. |
| 2025-04-28 | UPC_CFI_319/2024 | Milan LD | Application RoP262A | — | Procedural only | Order from the Milan Local Division dated 28 April 2025 on R. 262A RoP applications filed by ASUSTek Computer Inc., Arvato Netherlands B.V. and Digital River Ireland Ltd. in infringement proceedings (and related counterclaim for revocation) brought by Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson regarding EP 3 076 673. The court ruled on access restrictions for the 'Asustek Confidential Documents', limiting access to specified representatives, one licensing/valuation expert, and one designated company representative, subject to strict confidentiality obligations. |
| 2025-04-28 | UPC_CFI_318/2024 | Milan LD | Application RoP262A | — | Procedural only | The Milan Local Division (Judge-Rapporteur) issued an order in the infringement action by Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson against ASUSTek Computer, Arvato Netherlands and Digital River Ireland concerning EP 3 076 673. The defendants' applications under R. 262A and R. 262.2 RoP sought confidential treatment ('external eyes only') for certain Asustek documents in both the main action and the related counterclaim for revocation. The court ruled on the conditions for granting an 'external eyes only' regime, finding it available in cases of proven risk of conflict between the patent system and antitrust law. |
| 2025-04-15 | UPC_APP_55795/2024 | Milan LD | Preliminary objection | motionName.jurisdictional | Dismissed | The Milan Local Division dismissed Alpinestars Research's preliminary objection challenging the UPC's jurisdiction to adjudicate on infringement of European patents validated in Spain (a non-UPC contracting state). The court held, following the CJEU decision in C-339/2022, that the UPC has universal jurisdiction over European patents under Brussels I Regulation (recast) where the defendant is domiciled in a UPC member state, including for non-UPC validated patents such as in Spain. |
| 2025-04-08 | UPC_APP_61708/2024 | Milan LD | Preliminary objection | motionName.jurisdictional | Dismissed | Order of the Milan Local Division dismissing a preliminary objection (Rule 19 RoP) filed by Alpinestars S.p.A. challenging the jurisdiction of the Milan Local Division over infringement of EP 4 072 364 validated in Spain. The Court held that, following the CJEU judgment in C-339/22, the UPC as court of the defendant's domicile has universal jurisdiction over infringement of European patents including those validated in non-UPC countries such as Spain. |
| 2025-04-07 | UPC_APP_8545/2025 | Milan LD | Amend Document | Procedural | Procedural only | The Milan Local Division allowed Dainese's application under Rule 263 RoP to limit its claim by withdrawing all arguments related to EP 3 498 117 (following an EPO Board of Appeal limitation), while dismissing defendants' request for a costs order under Rule 265 RoP. |
| 2025-04-07 | UPC_APP_67917/2024 | Milan LD | Infringement Action | Procedural | Procedural only | The Milan Local Division granted Dainese S.p.A. leave under R.263.3 RoP to limit its claims by excluding all arguments and requests relating to EP 3 498 117 (EP'117), following the EPO Board of Appeal limiting the scope of that patent shortly before the oral proceedings. The action continues in respect of EP 4 072 364 (EP'364) only. The Court rejected Dainese's request for partial reimbursement of court fees (EUR 12,000) as insufficiently reasoned. The defendants' request for a costs decision under R.265(2) RoP was deferred to the final decision. Key headnotes: R.263.3 RoP applies both to limitation of relief (petitum) and limitation of the cause of action (causa petendi); costs are not addressed immediately under R.263 as proceedings continue. |
| 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. |
| 2025-03-18 | UPC_CFI_127/2025 | Milan LD | Application for preserving evidence pursuant to RoP192 | Evidence | Procedural only | The Milan Local Division granted Prinoth S.p.A. an order for preservation of evidence, inspection and seizure against Xelom S.r.l. concerning EP 1 995 159 and EP 2 507 436 (snow grooming vehicles), in advance of main proceedings. |
| 2025-02-20 | UPC_APP_3348/2025 | Milan LD | Application RoP262.1 (b) | Procedural | Procedural only | The Milan Local Division denied Bhagat Textile Engineers' application for access to the counterclaim for revocation file under Rule 262.1(b) RoP, finding the information sought could be obtained through other means and that access would compromise the integrity of ongoing settlement negotiations. |
| 2025-02-20 | UPC_APP_3348/2025 | Milan LD | Application RoP262.1 (b) | Procedural | Dismissed | Application by Bhagat Textile Engineers for public access under R.262.1(b) RoP to the counterclaim for revocation case file (Himson v. Oerlikon) in proceedings before the Milan Local Division was rejected. The court held that the information sought was obtainable from other public sources, that Bhagat had already been found to infringe the patent in parallel proceedings and had procedurally chosen not to challenge the patent, and that granting access would compromise the integrity of pending settlement negotiations between the parties. |
| 2025-02-07 | UPC_APP_5885/2025 | Milan LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | The Milan Local Division granted Dainese S.p.A.'s application under R. 9 RoP to extend the deadline for filing its defence to counterclaims for revocation and reply to statements of defence, in light of a concurrent EPO oral hearing on 13 February 2025 for the parallel opposition proceedings, and invited the parties to submit a joint request for alignment of future procedural deadlines. |
| 2025-01-29 | UPC_CFI_468/2023 | Paris LD | Application Rop 365 | — | Settled | The Paris Local Division confirmed the settlement between C-KORE and NOVAWELL pursuant to Rule 365 RoP. The infringement proceedings and the counterclaim for revocation were dismissed. The details of the settlement remain confidential. No order as to costs. |
| 2025-01-24 | UPC_APP_63772/2024 | Milan LD | Application Rop 265 | Procedural | Procedural only | The Milan Local Division issued a procedural order on Dainese's application under Rule 262A RoP for confidential protection of information contained in its partial withdrawal application, granting limited access to the confidential exhibit. |
| 2025-01-24 | UPC_APP_63878/2024 | Milan LD | Application RoP262A | Procedural | Procedural only | Procedural order from the Milan Local Division (UPC_CFI_472/2024) on Dainese's application for protection of confidential information under R. 262A RoP relating to a partial withdrawal submission. The Court ordered creation of a confidential club including at least one natural person from each party and their legal representatives, balancing confidentiality against the right to an effective defence. Access by Alpinestars/Motocard to unredacted documents was restricted to designated individuals. |
| 2025-01-15 | UPC_APP_1176/2025 | Milan LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | Milan Local Division granted Alpinestars S.p.A.'s request to extend the deadline for filing its Statement of Defence and counterclaim for revocation from 20 January 2025 to 20 February 2025, to allow the outcome of EPO appeal proceedings concerning EP 3 498 117 (oral hearing on 13 February 2025) to be incorporated. The court held that extending time limits, rather than staying proceedings, best balances procedural efficiency and the right to be heard in light of concurrent EPO appeal proceedings. |