| 2025-05-01 | APL_64374/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | PI granted | The Court of Appeal set aside the Milan Central Division's refusal of provisional measures and granted Insulet a pan-European preliminary injunction against EOFlow's insulin pump device ('EOPatch'/'GlucoMen Day Pump'), finding infringement of EP 4 201 327 and awarding costs to Insulet. |
| 2025-04-14 | APL_8326/2025 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal reversed the first-instance order and granted Stadapharm access to the statement of claim and annexes filed by Accord in a now-withdrawn declaration of non-infringement action against Novartis, finding that following withdrawal of the main proceedings all parties consented and no confidentiality concerns remained apart from personal data redactions. |
| 2025-03-26 | UPC_CoA_290/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | — | Costs only | The Court of Appeal dismissed Stäubli's appeal against the Paris Central Division's cost order in a revocation action in which the patent holders surrendered their patent after proceedings commenced. The Court upheld an equitable exception to the general rule (Art. 69(1) UPCA) that the unsuccessful party bears costs: where a claimant files a revocation action without the patent holder giving cause, and the patent holder surrenders the patent immediately at the outset and concurrently files a revocation request with the EPO under Art. 105a EPC, the claimant may bear the costs. The Court applied equity because the patent holders had announced timely surrender and completed formalities only 8 days late without causing extra costs. |
| 2025-03-04 | APL_51115/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | PI granted | Order by the Court of Appeal (UPC_CoA_523/2024, 3 March 2025) dismissing Sumi Agro's appeal and upholding the preliminary injunction granted by the first instance in favour of Syngenta for EP 2 152 073 (crop protection). The CoA found the patent more likely than not valid and infringed, extended the injunction to Romania following its UPCA accession, reversed the first-instance costs decision and ordered Sumi Agro to bear all costs at first instance and on appeal. The CoA also held that a cost decision must be issued in inter partes PI proceedings. |
| 2025-02-21 | UPC_CoA_618/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic Order | — | Costs only | The Court of Appeal addressed procedural issues regarding court fees for an appeal concerning a cost-fixing application, including a request for default judgment and a request for leave to appeal a cost decision under Rule 221 RoP. The order concerned the admissibility of a cost-fixing appeal following earlier proceedings in which the Munich Local Division had denied VusionGroup's preliminary injunction request and ordered costs. |
| 2025-02-19 | UPC_CoA_844/2024 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 265 | — | Withdrawn | Order from the Court of Appeal dated 19 February 2025 permitting Aarke AB to withdraw its appeal against the Düsseldorf Local Division's judgment (which had found infringement of EP 1 793 917 by Aarke and issued an injunction). The CoA found no legitimate interest of SodaStream in the appeal being decided, and permitted the withdrawal under R. 265.1 RoP. The appeal was declared closed and a cost decision was issued as required by R. 265.2(c) RoP. |
| 2025-02-19 | UPC_CoA_218/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | — | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal ordered the release of security deposits (totalling EUR 500,000) that NTS had provided for costs in three related cases, following withdrawal of the underlying infringement actions by NTS at the Munich Local Division. |
| 2025-02-14 | APL_39664/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | PI granted | Court of Appeal Panel 2 set aside the The Hague Local Division's refusal to grant provisional measures, and granted a preliminary injunction in favour of Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. against Sibio Technology Limited and Umedwings Netherlands B.V. concerning EP 3 831 283 (continuous glucose monitoring device). The Court found the patent valid (overcoming added matter and other validity challenges) and likely infringed by Sibionics' GS1 Device. A general injunction was ordered against all infringing acts in UPC Contracting Member States. Sibionics was also ordered to provide origin/distribution chain information and to deliver up infringing products. Penalty payments of EUR 10,000 per infringing product or EUR 100,000 per day were imposed. |
| 2025-01-16 | UPC_CoA_30/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | Court of Appeal dismissed REEL GmbH's preliminary objection to the jurisdiction of the UPC in a damages determination action brought by Fives ECL, SAS (UPC_CFI_274/2023). The CoA held that the UPC has jurisdiction under Art. 32(1)(a) and 32(1)(f) UPCA to determine damages following a national court judgment establishing infringement of EP 1 740 740. The separate action for damages is not limited to 'applications' under the Rules but constitutes an autonomous action; the court's competence also covers acts of infringement committed before the UPCA entry into force, provided the patent had not lapsed by 1 June 2023. |
| 2025-01-16 | UPC_CoA_30/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal (in German) set aside the Hamburg Local Division's order dismissing Fives ECL's standalone damages action and referred the case back to the Hamburg Local Division. The Court of Appeal held that the UPC has jurisdiction over a standalone action for assessment of damages where a national court has already found infringement and established the defendant's liability in principle, even for acts that pre-date the entry into force of the UPCA on 1 June 2023, provided the patent was still in force on that date. The Court confirmed that such actions fall within Art. 32(1) UPCA. |
| 2025-01-14 | APL_59329/2024 | Court of Appeal | Request for a discretionary review (RoP 220.3) | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal revoked the Mannheim Local Division's order on security for costs issued solely by the judge-rapporteur, finding that the judge-rapporteur was not competent to grant leave to appeal against such an order; the matter was referred back to the Court of First Instance for panel review. |
| 2025-01-10 | APL_54646/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal addressed whether the appeal had become devoid of purpose following the conclusion of related provisional measure proceedings before the Local Division Milan. The appeal was declared moot as the main proceedings at first instance had ended. |
| 2025-01-09 | UPC_CoA_611/2024 | Court of Appeal | Application For Costs | Costs | Costs only | Order of the Court of Appeal (Panel 2) granting DISH Technologies and Sling TV's application for reimbursement of court fees following their withdrawal of an appeal against a security-for-costs order (EUR 800,000) issued by the Mannheim Local Division. The parties had been misled by an erroneous legal remedy instruction in the first-instance order, which led them to file both a panel review request and a precautionary appeal. The Court of Appeal granted full reimbursement of the appeal fee (EUR 1,500) since the appeal was filed only as a precaution due to the incorrect instruction and was subsequently withdrawn promptly. |
| 2024-12-20 | UPC_CoA_405/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | — | PI denied | The Court of Appeal dismissed Alexion's appeal against the first-instance refusal of provisional measures, upholding the finding that the patent claim could not be corrected by interpretation to remove alleged errors, and confirming that claim 2 of EP 3 167 888 was more likely than not insufficiently disclosed (Article 83 EPC). The provisional measures application was therefore denied. |
| 2024-12-11 | UPC_CoA_719/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic Order | — | Procedural only | Court of Appeal order on Magna's application for suspensive effect of the preliminary injunction (UPC_CFI_347/2024) issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division. Magna argued the BMW 2 Series Gran Coupé (model F74) was omitted from the list of exempted models. The Court of Appeal denied suspensive effect, finding no obvious error in the CFI's rectification dismissal as Magna had not clearly introduced model F74/Gran Coupé as a distinct model during the injunction proceedings. |
| 2024-12-03 | APL_32012/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | PI denied | Court of Appeal lifted the preliminary injunction granted by Munich Local Division against SharkNinja for alleged infringement of Dyson's EP 2 043 492 (hand-held vacuum cleaner). The Court found on the balance of probabilities it was not more likely than not that the patent was infringed, noting that the principal mode of separation in the SharkNinja product is a filter, not cyclonic separation as claimed. Dyson ordered to bear SharkNinja's costs for both instances. |
| 2024-12-03 | UPC_CoA_297/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | — | PI denied | The Court of Appeal set aside the first-instance preliminary injunction granted against SharkNinja, holding that on a balance of probabilities it was not more likely than not that SharkNinja's product infringed claim 1 of Dyson's patent (EP not specified in excerpt). Dyson was ordered to bear SharkNinja's costs in both instances. |
| 2024-11-29 | UPC_CoA_548/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | Court of Appeal upheld the Düsseldorf Local Division's order requiring SodaStream Industries Ltd. (claimant/respondent) to provide security for costs in patent infringement proceedings (EP 1 793 917) against Aarke AB. The CoA affirmed the legal standard for security for costs: only the claimant's own financial position is relevant (not that of its group); a claimant's willingness to pay costs and the likely outcome of the case are irrelevant; enforcement being unduly burdensome suffices (need not be proven impossible). The appeal by Aarke was partly upheld in that the CFI applied criteria not in conformity with this standard, but the outcome (ordering SodaStream to provide security) was correct since SodaStream has sufficient financial means. |
| 2024-11-28 | UPC_CoA_490/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal addressed the appeal against a provisional measures order, ruling on the appellant's classification as a micro-enterprise or small enterprise for the purposes of court fee reductions. The matter concerned a default decision and the appellant's failure to demonstrate eligibility for the reduced fee rate. |
| 2024-11-27 | APL_59329/2024 | Court of Appeal | Request for a discretionary review (RoP 220.3) | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | Court of Appeal order on a request for discretionary review (R. 220.3 RoP) of a first-instance order requiring TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR to provide security for costs of EUR 600,000 (R. 158 RoP), in which leave to appeal had been refused. The Court of Appeal examined whether a judge-rapporteur acting alone has competence to issue a security-for-costs order under R. 158 RoP and to refuse leave to appeal, or whether the full panel is required. The order resulted in a further procedural step inviting party submissions on this competence question. |
| 2024-11-12 | APL_596007/2023 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal ruled on the interpretation of the term 'action' in Article 83 UPCA regarding jurisdiction and withdrawal of opt-outs during the transitional period. The Court held that the sentence concerning national court actions in Art. 83(4) UPCA refers only to actions brought during the transitional regime. |
| 2024-10-09 | UPC_CoA_586/2024 | Court of Appeal | Request for a discretionary review (RoP 220.3) | — | Dismissed | Court of Appeal (Standing Judge) dismissed Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy's request for discretionary review (Rule 220.3 RoP) of the Paris Central Division's order for security for costs as inadmissible. The court held that Suinno had not first requested the Court of First Instance to grant leave to appeal, which is a prerequisite before seeking discretionary review under Rule 220.3 RoP. The fact that the CFI order failed to indicate the right to appeal under Rule 158.3 RoP did not change this: the omission could not be read as an implied grant of leave. |
| 2024-10-09 | UPC_CoA_584/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic Order | — | Dismissed | The Court of Appeal rejected EOFlow's request for expedition of the appeal (in an appeal concerning refusal to join two provisional measures cases against different defendants). The court found that EOFlow had failed to act with sufficient urgency and by filing its appeal and expedition request at an unnecessarily late stage had insufficiently taken into account the interests of Insulet, making it impossible to expedite the appeal without prejudicing Insulet's response time. |
| 2024-09-27 | UPC_CoA_217/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | — | Procedural only | Order of the Court of Appeal dated 27 September 2024 on Audi AG's request for rectification under R. 353 RoP of a prior CoA order (dated 17 September 2024) requiring Network System Technologies LLC (NST) to provide security for costs of EUR 100,000, EUR 100,000 and EUR 300,000 in three appeal proceedings. Audi requested that the rectified order also include the notification under R. 158.4 RoP that default judgment may follow if NST fails to provide the security within three weeks. The CoA granted this request, finding the omission of the R. 158.4 notification was an obvious slip, as that notification is mandatory. |
| 2024-09-25 | APL_21143/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | PI granted | The Court of Appeal upheld a first-instance preliminary injunction (including a seizure order) obtained by Ortovox against Mammut for alleged infringement of a patent relating to avalanche rescue devices, affirming the findings on urgency, infringement likelihood, and balance of interests. The appeal by Mammut was dismissed and provisional cost reimbursement was ordered in favour of Ortovox. |
| 2024-09-25 | UPC_CoA_182/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | — | Procedural only | Rectification order of the Court of Appeal correcting an obvious clerical error in the operative part of the appeal order of 25 September 2024 (Mammut v Ortovox). In item 3 of the original order, 'Antragsgegnerin' was incorrectly used instead of 'Ortovox'; the corrected wording orders Mammut to reimburse Ortovox further provisional costs of EUR 19,858.40. |
| 2024-09-25 | UPC_CoA_182/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | — | PI granted | The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal by Mammut Sports Group and confirmed the provisional measures order issued by the Court of First Instance (Local Division) in favour of Ortovox. The Court rejected Mammut's attempts to introduce new submissions and its counterclaim for revocation in the appeal proceedings. The Court confirmed the provisional measures (seizure order and publication), the threatened penalty payment, and the security ordered. The Court additionally ordered Mammut to reimburse Ortovox's further interim costs of EUR 19,858.40 and to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings. Key legal principles established include: discretion to consider submissions rightly rejected at first instance; urgency requirements under R.211.4 RoP; irreparable harm not being a necessary condition for provisional measures; and applicability of R.263 RoP to provisional measures proceedings. |
| 2024-09-24 | APL_32347/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | Court of Appeal order on OPPO's appeal concerning requests for production of evidence (R. 190 RoP) to support a FRAND defence. The Court held that a defendant may invoke R. 190.1 RoP to request production of counter-evidence. The court must balance the defendant's interest in disclosure of documents useful to a FRAND defence against the other party's interest in protecting confidential information. The first-instance court has discretion, including as to timing in the proceedings. An application may not yet satisfy the requirements of necessity, relevance and proportionality at one stage but may do so at a later stage. |
| 2024-09-24 | APL_32347/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | Dismissed | Court of Appeal dismissed OPPO and OROPE's appeal against orders denying their requests for production of evidence (R.190 RoP) in FRAND proceedings. The Court held that the CFI acted within its margin of discretion in finding that production of Panasonic's settlement licence agreements did not meet criteria of necessity, relevance and proportionality at the current stage of proceedings. |
| 2024-09-24 | UPC_CoA_298/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | — | Procedural only | Order of the Court of Appeal (Panel 2) on appeals by Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications and OROPE Germany GmbH against the Mannheim Local Division's refusal to order document production (Rule 190 RoP) in FRAND-related patent proceedings by Panasonic. The Court of Appeal held: (1) a defendant may rely on Rule 190.1 to seek production of counter-evidence; (2) the court must balance the defendant's interest in evidence useful for a FRAND defence against the other party's and third parties' confidentiality interests; (3) the first-instance court has discretion under Rule 190, which may include sequencing considerations; (4) the assessment may depend on the procedural stage and may be premature at earlier stages. |
| 2024-09-18 | APL_38206/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal allowed Google's appeal and ordered the change of language of the proceedings from German to English, finding that Google's internal working language was English and that it was unduly disadvantaged by having to conduct proceedings in German, while Ona's managing director was proficient in both languages. |
| 2024-09-18 | APL_38948/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | Court of Appeal order on Apple's appeal against refusal to change the language of proceedings from German to English in infringement proceedings brought by Ona Patents against Apple before the Düsseldorf Local Division. The Court of Appeal clarified that internal working language of parties and their ability to coordinate on technical issues are relevant factors when deciding a language change request on grounds of fairness (Art. 49(5) UPCA). Parallel national court proceedings between the parties are of less relevance to this analysis. |
| 2024-09-18 | UPC_CoA_264/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | — | Dismissed | The Court of Appeal dismissed Audi AG's appeal in six consolidated cases challenging the Munich Local Division's refusal to grant preliminary objections under Rule 361 RoP (action manifestly bound to fail) against NST's infringement actions. The court held that R.361 RoP is reserved for clear-cut cases and cannot require the claimant to pre-empt every possible line of defence in the statement of claim. The court also rejected Audi's arguments that opt-outs were invalidly withdrawn, finding the UPC has jurisdiction. |
| 2024-09-17 | APL_25922/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal set aside the Munich Local Division's orders refusing security for costs and ordered Network System Technologies LLC to provide security for costs to Volkswagen AG, finding that NST's financial position as a special-purpose patent enforcement entity created a legitimate concern that a cost order might not be recoverable. |
| 2024-09-17 | APL_25919/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | The UPC Court of Appeal set aside the Munich Local Division's orders denying security for costs and ordered Network System Technologies LLC to provide security to Audi AG in amounts of EUR 100,000 (two cases) and EUR 300,000 (one case), finding that the lower court applied too high a standard of proof and that NST's failure to disclose its financial situation warranted the order. |
| 2024-08-21 | APL_45142/2024 | Court of Appeal | Request for a discretionary review (RoP 220.3) | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal dismissed AYLO's request for discretionary review of the Mannheim Local Division's confidentiality order, which had admitted three DISH/Sling-designated persons to the confidentiality club regarding protected business information. |
| 2024-08-21 | UPC_CoA_354/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | — | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal Panel 2 issued a procedural order summoning parties to an oral hearing by video conference (23 August 2024) in the appeal by Apple entities against the Düsseldorf Local Division's refusal to change the language of proceedings to the patent grant language in the Ona Patents infringement action concerning EP 2 263 098. The order also addressed Apple's application for further written pleadings (R. 9 RoP) and Ona Patents' request to disregard that reply (R. 36 RoP). |
| 2024-08-19 | UPC_CoA_388/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic Order | — | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal partially granted Sibio's request for suspensive effect of their appeal, specifically to the extent that the first-instance provisional measures order erroneously covered Ireland (which had not ratified the UPCA and therefore was not a Contracting Member State). The erroneous extension to Ireland was identified as a manifest error. |
| 2024-08-06 | APL_21602/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | Order from the Court of Appeal (UPC_CoA_183/2024) addressing service of a Statement of Claim on defendants based in China and Taiwan. The Court held that a group company in a Contracting Member State cannot automatically be used to serve Chinese or Taiwanese parent companies; Hague Convention procedures must normally be attempted first for China, and diplomatic/consular channels for Taiwan, before alternative methods are permitted. |
| 2024-08-06 | APL_24585/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Dismissed | Court of Appeal upheld Hamburg Local Division's refusal to allow service of a statement of claim on Chinese Xiaomi entities (Xiaomi Communications Co. Ltd. and Xiaomi Inc.) via their German/Dutch group companies in Nera Innovations Ltd. v. Xiaomi entities (EP 2 642 632). The court held: (1) service on a Chinese-domiciled defendant cannot be made via a group company in a contracting member state without more, because the corporate separation principle applies; (2) service must first be attempted via the Hague Service Convention (R. 274.1(a)(ii) RoP); (3) alternative service (R. 274.1(b), R. 275 RoP) is available only after Hague Convention attempts. |
| 2024-08-06 | APL_10370/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal (Panel 2) ruled on service of the statement of claim on Xiaomi defendants in China and Hong Kong in Panasonic Holdings Corporation v Xiaomi (UPC_CoA_86/2024, EP 2 207 270). The Court held that service on a Chinese or HK group company cannot automatically be effected through a related group company in a Contracting Member State — such a company cannot be treated as the registered office, head office, or principal place of business, nor as a permanent or temporary business establishment under R. 271.5(a) RoP. Service attempts in China via the Hague Service Convention must normally be made before alternative service methods or alternative locations under R. 275 RoP are permitted. |
| 2024-08-06 | UPC_CoA_205/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | — | Procedural only | Court of Appeal ruled on service of statement of claim on Chinese defendants. Held that a defendant company in China cannot, as a starting point, be served via a group company in a Contracting Member State. Attempts to serve via the Hague Convention must normally be made before alternative service methods are permitted. The appeal concerning service procedure was decided on its merits; no ruling on infringement. |
| 2024-08-06 | UPC_CoA_86/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | — | Procedural only | Court of Appeal ruled on service of statement of claim on defendants in China and Hong Kong. Held that Chinese and Hong Kong defendants cannot be served via group companies in Contracting Member States. Service via the Hague Convention must normally be attempted first before alternative methods under R.275 RoP are permitted. No ruling on infringement merits. |
| 2024-07-30 | UPC_CoA_402/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | — | Procedural only | Procedural order from the Court of Appeal dated 30 July 2024 rejecting Alexion Pharmaceuticals' request for expedition of its appeal against the Hamburg Local Division's dismissal of its preliminary injunction application against Samsung Bioepis NL B.V. The CoA found the circumstances were not sufficiently urgent to outweigh Samsung's interest in the standard 15-day response period, noting that the appeal concerned a purely legal issue was insufficient justification, and that Alexion had not used the full time period available to it. |
| 2024-07-29 | UPC_CoA_69/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Dismissed | Court of Appeal rejected NEC's appeal against the Munich Local Division's refusal to permit service on Chinese and Hong Kong TCL companies by email or by public notice. The CoA held that: (1) service by email to a person not authorised to accept service is invalid; (2) public service at a UPC Local Division is not yet permissible at that stage; (3) attempts at service via the Hague Convention must normally be exhausted before alternative methods are permitted. NEC's appeal was rejected. |
| 2024-07-07 | UPC_CoA_301/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | — | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal Panel 2 issued a procedural order in the appeal by ICPillar LLC against an ARM-group request for security for costs (R. 158 RoP) granted by the Paris Local Division. The order addressed a technical problem with CMS notification and ICPillar's R. 262A confidentiality application submitted alongside its statement of appeal, dealing with service and procedural steps only. |
| 2024-06-20 | UPC_CoA_234/2024 | Court of Appeal | Application RoP262A | — | Procedural only | Court of Appeal ruled that a confidentiality order (R.262A RoP) issued by the Court of First Instance continues to apply in appeal proceedings without the need for a new order. The Registry was instructed to grant access to unredacted statements only to persons named in the original CFI confidentiality order. |
| 2024-06-20 | UPC_CoA_234/2024 | Court of Appeal | Application RoP262A | — | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal ruled that a non-appealed confidentiality order (Rule 262A RoP) made by the Court of First Instance continues to apply in appeal proceedings. No new Rule 262A order is required where the same already-protected information appears in another document lodged in the appeal. |
| 2024-06-17 | UPC_CoA_221/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | — | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal ruled on Audi AG's request to file additional written pleadings (R. 36 RoP) in an appeal against a first-instance order denying Audi's application for security for costs (R. 158 RoP) in infringement proceedings brought against it by Network System Technologies LLC. The CoA held that R. 101-110 apply mutatis mutandis in appeal proceedings, and that R. 35 and R. 36 are therefore applicable on appeal. The Court granted Audi's request to submit a brief reply to correct facts stated by NST in its response. |
| 2024-06-04 | APL_9578/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Dismissed | Court of Appeal (4 June 2024) rejected Neo Wireless's appeal and confirmed that the opt-out filed by Neo Wireless LLC (USA) for all EPC states was invalid because it was not filed on behalf of all proprietors of all national parts of the patent (Neo Wireless GmbH & Co. KG held the German part). Art. 83(3) UPCA requires all proprietors of all national parts to lodge or authorise an opt-out. |