| 2024-07-26 | UPC_APP_33764/2024 | Court of Appeal | Application RoP262A | Procedural | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal addressed ICPillar's application for confidentiality under Rule 262A RoP regarding Exhibit 4 to the Statement of Appeal in proceedings concerning security for legal costs, in the underlying infringement action against ARM Limited. |
| 2024-07-11 | UPC_APP_39101/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | motionName.appeal_decision | Dismissed | Court of Appeal (11 July 2024) dismissed Apple's application to accelerate the appeal proceedings and shorten the time limit for Ona Patents to file its response. The CoA held that Apple's interest in acceleration did not outweigh Ona's interest in proper proceedings and a fair time limit. |
| 2024-07-05 | UPC_APP_38102/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | Procedural | Withdrawn | Order from the Court of Appeal (UPC_CoA_234/2024) allowing 10x Genomics' request to withdraw its appeal against a partial dismissal of its application for provisional measures against Curio Bioscience, after Curio confirmed it had not filed a cross-appeal. The Court of Appeal declared the appeal proceedings closed, with costs to be decided in a final order in the main action. |
| 2024-06-19 | UPC_APP_35055/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | Court of Appeal (Panel 2) procedural order rejecting ICPillar LLC's application for suspensive effect of a Paris Local Division order requiring ICPillar to provide security for costs of EUR 600,000 (R. 158 RoP), and also rejecting ICPillar's subordinate request for expedition of the appeal. The Court held that suspensive effect under Art. 74(1) UPCA is in principle available for R. 220.2 RoP orders (notwithstanding R. 223.5 RoP), but that only exceptional circumstances justify granting it. No exceptional circumstances existed here – the risk of a default judgment if ICPillar fails to comply is an inherent feature of non-compliance, and is not sufficient to grant suspensive effect. |
| 2024-06-04 | UPC_APP_31209/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal (second panel) addressed Nera Innovations' request for partial withdrawal of its appeal against two of four Xiaomi defendants, establishing principles on when partial withdrawal of an appeal is permissible under R. 265 RoP and whether the other parties have legitimate interests in a full decision. |
| 2024-06-04 | UPC_APP_30470/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | motionName.appeal_decision | Dismissed | Court of Appeal (4 June 2024) rejected Daedalus Prime LLC's application to partially withdraw its appeal as against Xiaomi NL and Xiaomi DE only. The CoA held that those respondents had been served, had responded to the appeal, and had a legitimate interest in having the appeal adjudicated in relation to them, so partial withdrawal would impermissibly deprive them of their right to be heard. |
| 2024-05-22 | UPC_APP_29007/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal denied Audi AG's request to expedite its appeal against the dismissal of an application for security for costs in the NST v. Audi infringement action, finding the request too unspecified and insufficiently substantiated. |
| 2024-05-22 | UPC_APP_29005/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | Procedural | Dismissed | The Court of Appeal denied Volkswagen's request to expedite the appeal and shorten deadlines under Rules 225(e) and 9.3(b) RoP, finding the request too unspecified and insufficiently substantiated. |
| 2024-05-22 | UPC_APP_29006/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | Procedural | Dismissed | The UPC Court of Appeal denied Audi AG's request to expedite the appeal against the Munich Local Division's refusal to order security for costs from Network System Technologies LLC in infringement proceedings concerning EP1875683, finding the request too unspecific and insufficiently substantiated. |
| 2024-05-22 | UPC_APP_28997/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal denied Volkswagen's request to expedite its appeal against a first-instance order dismissing its application for security for costs, finding the request too unspecific and insufficiently substantiated. No expedition was granted. |
| 2024-05-01 | UPC_APP_23543/2024 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 333 | Procedural | Procedural only | Court of Appeal (Second Panel) dismissed Daedalus Prime LLC's request for panel review of an order refusing extension of time for the Statement of Grounds of Appeal. The panel found no grounds to deviate from the judge-rapporteur's order, holding that the desire to present a thorough analysis or obtain a legal opinion does not justify extension. |
| 2024-04-11 | UPC_APP_17551/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | Order of the Court of Appeal setting out the time period for filing a Statement of appeal under Rule 220.2 RoP where leave to appeal is granted in the impugned order itself. The Court held that the 15-day period runs from service of the order containing the grant of leave (whether in the impugned order itself or in a separate order). The appeal arises from Neo Wireless GmbH & Co KG challenging rejection of a preliminary objection in revocation proceedings concerning EP 3 876 490 brought by Toyota Motor Europe. |
| 2024-03-28 | UPC_APP_12137/2024 | Court of Appeal | — | Procedural | Procedural only | Order of the Court of Appeal (Panel 2) on an application by Curio Bioscience Inc. for restriction of access to confidential information under Rule 262A RoP. Curio sought to limit access to an unredacted document (CR-3) in the context of a pending language-change appeal. The Court held that a first-instance Rule 262A order restricting access to certain documents retains its force during appeal proceedings even if not directly challenged on appeal, and continues to govern access until the conclusion of the entire proceedings. Access to the confidential document was maintained restricted to specified persons. |
| 2024-03-28 | UPC_APP_12137/2024 | Court of Appeal | — | Procedural | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal (Second Panel) ruled that the confidentiality order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division on 11 March 2024 under R. 262A RoP (restricting access to document CR-3) continues to apply in the appeal proceedings, making Curio Bioscience's separate request for a confidentiality protection order in the appeal superfluous. The existing order covers 'outside these proceedings' broadly, including the appeal. No new order needed. |
| 2023-11-06 | UPC_APP_584588/2023 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 223 | Procedural | Procedural only | Court of Appeal standing judge granted suspensive effect (6 November 2023) to Ocado Innovation Limited's appeal against a Nordic-Baltic Regional Division order granting a third party access to Ocado's statement of claim. The suspensive effect prevents access to the document pending adjudication of the appeal on the merits. |