| 2025-12-24 | UPC_APP_20809/2025 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | motionName.appeal_decision | Settled | The Court of Appeal permitted Sumi Agro Limited and Sumi Agro Europe Limited's withdrawal of their application for rehearing (R. 245 RoP) in the appeal UPC_CoA_523/2024, filed following ongoing settlement discussions between the parties. Both parties jointly applied for the withdrawal, agreed that no costs would be claimed, and requested release of the security deposit. The proceedings were declared closed. |
| 2025-09-23 | UPC_APP_33679/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop313 | Procedural | Procedural only | Court of Appeal admitted Apple Inc.'s applications to intervene in the appeal proceedings (Ericsson v. ASUS) concerning confidentiality orders relating to licensing agreements between Ericsson and Apple. The CoA held that Apple has a direct and present legal interest in the result of the proceedings under R.313.1 RoP, as the confidential information at issue concerns Apple–Ericsson agreements. Apple was granted 15 days to file a Statement in intervention and will be permitted to participate in the oral hearing. |
| 2025-08-25 | UPC_APP_34972/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 223 | Procedural | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal rejected Sun Patent Trust's application for suspensive effect of its appeal against a Paris Local Division order, finding that granting VIVO employees access to highly confidential information pending the appeal did not irreversibly undermine the appeal's purpose. |
| 2025-08-25 | UPC_APP_34971/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 223 | Procedural | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal received Sun Patent Trust's application for suspensive effect under Rule 223 RoP against an order of the Paris Local Division of 31 July 2025 granting certain Vivo employees access to highly confidential information in infringement proceedings. Sun Patent argued that the highly confidential licence information should be subject to an 'External Eyes Only' regime excluding Vivo employees. |
| 2025-08-21 | ORD_35283/2025 | Court of Appeal | Generic Order | Procedural | Procedural only | Order from the Court of Appeal (UPC_CoA_363/2025) dismissing Microsoft's request for rectification of a Court of Appeal decision by default against Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies under R. 353 RoP. Microsoft sought to add a R. 356.3 RoP notice (that a further default decision would be final) to the decision. The Court held that such a notice must be requested in the proceedings concerning the default decision itself, and could not be added retrospectively by way of rectification. |
| 2025-08-21 | UPC_APP_33358/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop313 | Procedural | Withdrawn | The UPC Court of Appeal granted the withdrawal of an intervention application filed by LIFE 365 S.R.L. and LIFE 365 ITALY S.P.A. in an appeal (LAMA v Hewlett-Packard) concerning patents EP2089230 and EP1737669, as the underlying appeal had already been closed before the intervention request was filed. |
| 2025-08-21 | UPC_APP_33358/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop313 | Procedural | Withdrawn | Court of Appeal granted the application by Life 365 S.r.l. and Life 365 Italy S.p.A. to withdraw their application to intervene (R. 313 RoP), following a settlement between LAMA and HPDC in the underlying appeal proceedings. The parties in the main appeal had already withdrawn all their claims by decision of 24 July 2025. |
| 2025-07-24 | ORD_33660/2025 | Court of Appeal | Generic Order | Procedural | Withdrawn | The UPC Court of Appeal granted Hanshow Germany GmbH's request to withdraw its appeal against a cost decision in a revocation action concerning EP3883277, and ordered 60% reimbursement of court fees under R.370.9(b)(i) RoP as the withdrawal occurred before closure of the written procedure. Each party bears its own costs. |
| 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. |
| 2025-06-23 | 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. |
| 2025-06-19 | 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. |
| 2025-05-28 | 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. |
| 2025-05-20 | 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. |
| 2025-03-24 | 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. |
| 2025-01-20 | 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. |
| 2025-01-15 | 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. |
| 2024-11-21 | UPC_APP_62076/2024 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 223 | Procedural | Procedural only | The Standing Judge of the Court of Appeal (Klaus Grabinski) provisionally granted suspensive effect to Magna's appeal against the Düsseldorf Local Division's preliminary injunction of 31 October 2024 (EP 3 320 602), but only to the limited extent that the exception to the injunction (covering existing BMW delivery obligations as of 8 October 2024) did not include the 'BMW 2 Series Gran Coupé' model. The order was issued pending a final decision on the suspensive effect application by panel 2 of the Court of Appeal. Note: The case number in the metadata is listed as UPC_APP_62076/2024 but the actual CoA reference is UPC_CoA_719/2024. |
| 2024-11-21 | UPC_APP_62076/2024 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 223 | Procedural | Procedural only | Identical situation to App_62076/2024 but concerning EP 3 320 604 (UPC_CoA_720/2024, ACT_39183/2024, UPC_CFI_368/2024). The Standing Judge provisionally granted suspensive effect to Magna's appeal against the Düsseldorf LD's preliminary injunction of 31 October 2024 to the limited extent that the 'BMW 2 Series Gran Coupé' model was not included in the exception to the injunction, pending the panel's final decision on suspensive effect. |
| 2024-10-15 | CoA_PC 01/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | — | Dismissed | Court of Appeal declared Photon Wave's appeal inadmissible. The CoA held that leave to appeal under R.220.2 RoP (other than together with an appeal against the final decision) must be expressly granted by the Court of First Instance and cannot be presumed. As no express leave to appeal was granted by the Paris Local Division, the appeal was inadmissible. |
| 2024-10-15 | CoA_PC 01/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | — | Dismissed | Court of Appeal declared Photon Wave's appeal inadmissible. The Court held that leave to appeal under R. 220.2 RoP must be expressly granted by the Court of First Instance and cannot be presumed. Since the Paris Local Division had not expressly granted leave to appeal the procedural order of 24 July 2024, the appeal was inadmissible. |
| 2024-08-08 | UPC_APP_44530/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal ruled that service of written pleadings must be effected through the Court's electronic CMS and that prior communication via Germany's beA (besonderes elektronisches Anwaltspostfach) does not constitute effective service under R.278.1 RoP. |
| 2024-07-30 | UPC_APP_43889/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal rejected Alexion Pharmaceuticals' request to expedite the appeal against the Hamburg Local Division's refusal to grant provisional measures against Amgen, holding that the circumstances were not sufficiently urgent to justify shortening the time period for the respondents to lodge their statement of response. |
| 2024-07-26 | UPC_APP_42818/2024 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 223 | Procedural | Procedural only | Order of the President of the Court of Appeal (in Dutch) in OrthoApnea / Vivisol v [anonymised] (EP 2 331 036). Defendants (appellants) applied for suspensive effect of an order refusing to extend the deadline for their rejoinder. The president found such an application may be admissible. The order addresses the procedural question of suspensive effect in the context of a refusal to extend a rejoinder deadline. |
| 2024-07-26 | UPC_APP_42818/2024 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 223 | Procedural | Procedural only | The President of the Court of Appeal (Klaus Grabinski, Standing Judge) rejected the defendants' (OrthoApnea S.L. and Vivisol B BV) request for suspensive effect of the appeal against the Brussels Local Division's decision not to extend the deadline for their Statement of Rejoinder beyond 1 August 2024 (Request I). The court found no manifestly erroneous decision by the CFI. Requests II, III and IV (which go to the substance of the appeal and the request for extension) were referred to the competent panel. |
| 2024-03-14 | ORD_16795/2024 | Court of Appeal | Decision By Default | Default judgment | Dismissed | The President of the Court of Appeal declared the Abbott entities' appeal inadmissible from the outset because it was brought without leave to appeal as required under Rule 220.2 RoP, and noted that an inadmissible appeal cannot be withdrawn. |
| 2024-03-14 | ORD_16788/2024 | Court of Appeal | Decision By Default | Default judgment | Dismissed | President of the Court of Appeal rejected Abbott entities' appeal as inadmissible. Abbott had filed an appeal under R. 220.2 RoP against a confidentiality order from the Paris Local Division without leave having been granted. The judge-rapporteur of the first instance had explicitly stated leave was not granted. Without leave, the appeal was inadmissible from the outset and therefore could not be withdrawn; the President declared the appeal rejected. |
| 2024-03-11 | ORD_12169/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic Order | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | Court of Appeal order correcting an error in headnote 2, paragraph 3 of a prior order (26 February 2024) concerning the interpretation of patent claims in provisional measures proceedings between 10x Genomics/Harvard (applicants) and NanoString Technologies (respondents). The correction clarifies the principles for claim scope interpretation under Art. 69 EPC: the claim is the decisive basis (not merely a guideline); description and drawings are always used as explanatory aids; the claim is to be construed from the perspective of the skilled person; the aim is to combine appropriate protection with sufficient legal certainty. |
| 2024-02-26 | UPC_APP_6601/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal of the UPC refused to stay the provisional measures appeal proceedings despite NanoString's Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing in the US. The court held that even if the insolvency threshold under R. 311.1 RoP was met, no stay was warranted where the oral proceedings were already concluded and the case was ready for decision, balancing procedural economy and cost efficiency under Art. 41(3) UPCA. |