| 2026-03-25 | UPC_CoA_528/2024 | Court of Appeal | Withdrawal (RoP265) | Withdrawal | Withdrawn | Sanofi and Regeneron withdrew their application for rehearing (R.245 RoP) concerning the Court of Appeal's decision of 25 November 2025 (UPC_CoA_528/2024 and UPC_CoA_529/2024) which had rejected the revocation of EP 3 666 797 and set aside the Central Division Munich's first-instance decision. The application for withdrawal was permitted. The decision covers both UPC_CoA_528/2024 and UPC_CoA_529/2024. Court fees were to be reimbursed accordingly. |
| 2026-03-24 | UPC_CoA_935/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 223 | Procedural | Procedural only | Court of Appeal dismissed the application for suspensive effect of an appeal against a default judgment of The Hague Local Division. The Court held that an application for suspensive effect must set out all reasons, facts, evidence and arguments at once; a second application is inadmissible unless new submissions could not reasonably have been made earlier. |
| 2026-03-16 | UPC_CoA_904/2025 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal (Panel 1a) dismissed VIVO's appeal against the Paris Local Division's order deferring the decision on the admissibility of claim A.II of the Statement of Claim to the main proceedings. The CoA confirmed that the panel (not only the judge-rapporteur) was competent to make the deferral decision, and that the Paris LD did not exceed its margin of discretion. The appeal also concerned UPC_CoA_905/2025 (EP 3 852 468). |
| 2026-03-06 | UPC_CoA_813/2025 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | PI granted | The Court of Appeal extended the provisional measures (preliminary injunction) granted against Dreame International, Teqphone GmbH, and Dreame Technology AB to cover Dyson's 'New Dreame Products' and 'Newest Dreame Products' (EP 3 119 235, vacuum cleaner patent). The Court held that: (1) a structural element in a claim must be interpreted considering both its function and physical configuration; (2) the fact that an infringer has previously committed only certain infringing acts does not restrict an injunction to those specific acts – the existence of past infringement establishes a risk of all acts of use; (3) the date for R. 213.1 RoP compliance was set at 31 calendar days after service. |
| 2026-03-06 | UPC_CoA_813/2025 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | Court of Appeal referred a question to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling on whether an 'authorised representative' under EU product safety regulations (Regulations 2023/988 and 2019/1020) can be enjoined as an 'intermediary' for patent infringement purposes under Art. 9(1)(a) of Directive 2004/48. The case arises from Dyson's appeal against Hamburg Local Division's refusal to grant provisional measures against Eurep GmbH, the EU authorised representative of Dreame International. |
| 2026-03-04 | UPC_CoA_678/2025 | Court of Appeal | Generic Order | Procedural | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal (judge-rapporteur Emmanuel Gougé) granted Hurom Co., Ltd.'s application for further exchanges of written pleadings (R. 36 RoP) in the appeal against the Paris Local Division's decision of 23 May 2025 dismissing Hurom's infringement claims and revoking several claims of EP 3 155 936. The CoA allowed further pleadings because Hurom had introduced two new auxiliary requests on appeal (not filed at first instance) and NUC had responded with new prior art documents (D5, D6) and invalidity arguments that Hurom had not yet had an opportunity to address. The principles of due process and the right to be heard justified the further exchange. |
| 2026-03-03 | UPC_CoA_887/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 265 | Procedural | Withdrawn | The Court of Appeal permitted Washtower's withdrawal of its application for provisional measures under R. 265 RoP and declared the proceedings closed. Washtower agreed to bear the costs of both first and second instance of the provisional measures proceedings. The Court also determined the value in dispute at 66% of the value of a permanent injunction, in accordance with the Court of Appeal's guidelines on cost ceilings for provisional measure proceedings not followed by a merits action. |
| 2026-02-18 | UPC_CoA_528/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | Preliminary injunction | Dismissed | The Court of Appeal (Panel with Klaus Grabinski, Nathalie Sabotier, Peter Blok) rejected Sanofi and Regeneron's application for suspensive effect concerning the Court of Appeal's own decision of 25 November 2025 which had rejected the requests for revocation of EP 3 666 797. Sanofi and Regeneron sought suspensive effect as part of a petition for rehearing (R. 220.4 RoP). The court found no basis to suspend a revocation-rejection decision (as this had no practical effect on the patent's validity status), and rejected the claim that the CoA's reasoning on claim interpretation and inventive step was based on issues not argued by the parties. |
| 2026-02-17 | UPC_CoA_926/2025 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | Order of the Court of Appeal (Panel 1a) on TP-Link's appeal against Munich Local Division orders restricting public access to the register under Rule 262.1(b) RoP. TP-Link (a third party to the main Huawei v. Netgear infringement proceedings) sought access to certain pleadings and annexes filed in those proceedings after redaction of personal data. This is the German-language version of the order (see also the English-language version filed as item 12). The court addressed the scope of public access rights to UPC register documents and conditions under which access may be restricted. |
| 2026-02-17 | UPC_CoA_926/2025 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | English-language version of the Court of Appeal (Panel 1a) order on TP-Link's appeal against Munich Local Division orders restricting public access to the register under Rule 262.1(b) RoP. TP-Link sought access to certain pleadings and annexes submitted by Huawei and Netgear in the main infringement proceedings (UPC_CFI_168/2024 and UPC_CFI_152/2024) after redaction of personal data. The court addressed the scope of public access to UPC pleadings, the balancing of transparency against confidentiality interests, and the conditions under which third-party register access must be granted or may be restricted. |
| 2026-02-17 | UPC_CoA_302/2025 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | Infringed | Court of Appeal reversed the first instance decision, which had revoked the patent. The Court of Appeal upheld the patent's validity (rejecting the counterclaim for revocation), found patent infringement, and issued orders including a permanent injunction, recall, and destruction of infringing products. Provisional lump-sum damages of EUR 20,000 were awarded, with full damages to be determined in subsequent proceedings. (German-language version) |
| 2026-02-17 | UPC_CoA_302/2025 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | Infringed | Court of Appeal reversed the first instance decision, which had revoked the patent. The Court of Appeal upheld the patent's validity (rejecting the counterclaim for revocation), found patent infringement, and issued orders including a permanent injunction, recall, and destruction of infringing products. Provisional lump-sum damages of EUR 20,000 were awarded, with full damages to be determined in subsequent proceedings. (English-language version) |
| 2026-02-04 | UPC_CoA_891/2025 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal ruled on the admissibility of Centripetal's amended requests in its appeal concerning an application for preserving evidence and inspecting premises at Palo Alto's Mannheim offices. The order addresses whether amended requests submitted on appeal are admissible and how the preservation/inspection procedure should proceed. The Court ordered the evidence preservation and inspection subject to specified conditions. Judges: Klaus Grabinski (President), Peter Blok (judge-rapporteur), Emanuela Germano, Eric Augarde, Torsten Duhme. |
| 2026-01-26 | UPC_CoA_791/2025 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | Court of Appeal order on confidentiality protection (Rule 262A RoP) in Sun Patent Trust v. Vivo appeal proceedings. The court set principles for access to confidential information by employees of parties, holding that employee status alone is not sufficient to deny access, and that parties should generally be able to propose at least one employee for access to ensure effective representation. |
| 2026-01-26 | UPC_CoA_631/2025 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal issued a final order on the protection of confidential information (R. 262A RoP) in the Ericsson v. ASUS infringement proceedings. The Court established a confidentiality club granting access to: court representatives and their assistants, Ericsson's licensing expert Robert Mills (Berkeley Research Group), ASUS's licensing expert Philip Kline (EconEdge), and one natural person from each party. Persons with access to confidential licence agreement information may not participate in or advise upon patent licensing negotiations with the relevant counterparties for five years. |
| 2026-01-26 | UPC_CoA_631/2025 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal (Panel 1a) partially granted Ericsson's application for rectification (R. 353 RoP) of the Court of Appeal's order of 26 January 2026 on confidentiality club access under R. 262A RoP in the Ericsson v ASUS infringement proceedings concerning EP 2 727 342 and EP 3 076 673. Paragraph VI of the operative part was rectified to apply only to ASUS's designated employee (not Ericsson's), correcting an obvious slip. ASUS's auxiliary request was rejected. |
| 2026-01-16 | UPC_CoA_935/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 223 | Procedural | Dismissed | Court of Appeal dismissed the anonymised applicant's application for suspensive effect of its appeal against a default decision from The Hague Local Division (which had granted provisional measures and subsequently a default judgment in favour of Amycel). The CoA held that the applicant failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances, that the impugned decision was manifestly erroneous, or that the appeal would become devoid of purpose without suspensive effect. |
| 2025-12-29 | UPC_CoA_936/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 223 | Procedural | Procedural only | The President of the Court of Appeal (Klaus Grabinski, Standing Judge) rejected Amazon's application for suspensive effect regarding the Mannheim Local Division's Anti-Suit Injunction (ASI) order of 22 December 2025, which confirmed an earlier order of 30 September 2025 prohibiting Amazon from pursuing or enforcing anti-suit injunctions against InterDigital's UPC patent enforcement actions. Amazon failed to demonstrate the order was 'manifestly erroneous', which is the threshold for suspensive effect under the UPC's case law. |
| 2025-12-17 | UPC_CoA_926/2025 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | Procedural order of the Court of Appeal (Panel 1a) in the register-access appeal proceedings (Huawei v. TP-Link regarding access to UPC proceedings documents) on TP-Link's application for suspensive effect of the appeal under Rule 220.2 RoP, filed on 17 December 2025. The order addressed whether the Munich Local Division's orders of 28 November 2025 restricting register access should be stayed pending the appeal. This is a precursor procedural step to the substantive decision on register access issued on 17 February 2026. |
| 2025-12-02 | UPC_CoA_894/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 223 | Procedural | Procedural only | Order of the Court of Appeal single judge on Windhager Handelsgesellschaft's application for suspensive effect (Rule 223 RoP) of its appeal against the Mannheim Local Division judgment largely upholding bellissa HAAS GmbH's infringement action for EP 2 223 589 and rejecting Windhager's revocation counterclaim. Windhager alleged obvious errors in the first-instance assessment of direct infringement and the rejection of the revocation counterclaim. The order addressed the admissibility of the application (corrected after formality defects) and the substantive criteria for granting suspensive effect. |
| 2025-11-27 | UPC_CoA_904/2025 | Court of Appeal | Generic Order | Procedural | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal (Panel 1a: Grabinski, Gougé, Blok) rejected VIVO's request for stay of the first-instance proceedings (UPC_CFI_362/2025 and UPC_CFI_361/2025) pending the appeal on the preliminary objection (R. 21.2 RoP) concerning EP 3 407 524 and EP 3 852 468. The court found no exceptional circumstances justifying a stay: the unresolved jurisdictional question did not constitute exceptional circumstances, and the costs of preparing VIVO's defence were insufficient. Sun Patent's interest in obtaining a timely decision outweighed VIVO's interest in avoiding preparation costs. |
| 2025-11-25 | UPC_CoA_529/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | Revoked | The Court of Appeal decided appeals in a revocation action and a counterclaim for revocation concerning PCSK9 antibody patents. Based on the reasoning visible in the excerpt, the Court found that the patent lacked inventive step because the skilled person at the priority date could not reasonably predict whether an antibody targeting secreted PCSK9 would result in a therapeutically effective treatment for hypercholesterolaemia; the prior art (Lagace, Horton, Cunningham) contained only conditional suggestions. The appeals concerned claim interpretation, added matter, sufficiency, and inventive step in the context of medical use-format claims. The operative decision is not fully visible in the excerpt but the substantive reasoning strongly indicates revocation. |
| 2025-11-25 | UPC_CoA_464/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | Patent maintained | The Court of Appeal dismissed the Meril companies' appeals against the revocation and counterclaim revocation decisions and Edwards' appeal against the infringement decision, upholding the patent EP 3 646 825 (heart valve). Key rulings: (I–VIII) All revocation and counterclaim appeals rejected; Meril bears 60% of Edwards' costs in the revocation proceedings and Edwards bears 40% of Meril's costs. (IX–X) The infringement decision was partially set aside: the injunction and preliminary damages order do not extend to XL devices (30.5mm and 32mm) that had not been scheduled for implantation in a patient by 15 November 2024. Preliminary damages reduced to not exceed €363,000 for Meril India and Meril Germany. The value of the proceedings is €8,000,000. |
| 2025-11-07 | UPC_CoA_900/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 223 | Procedural | Dismissed | Court of Appeal (judge-rapporteur) rejected Lepu Medical's application for suspensive effect of its appeal against a preliminary injunction granted by the Hamburg Local Division in favour of Occlutech. The CoA held that Lepu failed to demonstrate that the impugned order contained manifest errors or that the appeal would become devoid of purpose without suspensive effect. Lepu's claim that enforcing the injunction would damage its reputation was insufficient to outweigh Occlutech's interest in preventing imminent patent infringement. |
| 2025-11-07 | UPC_CoA_579/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application for provisional measures | Preliminary injunction | PI denied | Court of Appeal allowed OTEC's appeal and set aside the first-instance order granting provisional measures to STEROS. The CoA found the appeal successful and ordered that STEROS's application for provisional measures be rejected. STEROS was ordered to bear the costs of both the first-instance and appeal proceedings. |
| 2025-11-07 | UPC_CoA_579/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application for provisional measures | Procedural | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal (Panel 1a: Grabinski, Gougé, Blok, Meewisse, Schmidt) partially granted STEROS GPA Innovative S.L.'s application for rectification (R. 353 RoP) of the Court of Appeal's order of 7 November 2025 which had set aside the Hamburg Local Division's provisional measures grant and rejected the application for provisional measures concerning EP 4 249 647. The court corrected a clerical mistake in margin 45 (Table 1 changed to Table 10), but rejected STEROS' further argument that margin 43 contained an 'obvious slip' since the proposed change would affect the substance of the reasoning. |
| 2025-10-31 | UPC_CoA_755/2025 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | Procedural | Dismissed | Court of Appeal dismissed Vivo's request to stay the first-instance proceedings (UPC_CFI_361/2025 and UPC_CFI_263/2025) and extend time limits pending the appeal proceedings. The CoA held that R.21.2 RoP (stay in context of preliminary objection appeal) cannot be applied by anticipation before an appeal against the preliminary objection order has been lodged. Under R.295 RoP, the CoA is generally not the appropriate body to decide on stays of first-instance proceedings, as the CFI is better placed to manage its own case. |
| 2025-10-01 | UPC_CoA_681/2025 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal dismissed Bruker's appeal against the Munich Local Division's court fee assessment for Bruker's application for the determination of compensation (quantum proceedings) against 10x Genomics. The Court held that a request to lay open books (R. 131.1(c); R. 141–144 RoP) forms part of quantum proceedings, and the party filing it must pay both the fixed fee and the value-based fee for determination of damages, regardless of whether it is combined with a liability request. Bruker's argument that requiring a fee violated the principle of legal certainty was rejected. |
| 2025-09-24 | UPC_CoA_887/2025 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | Court of Appeal (Judge-Rapporteur) granted Appellants' request for a two-week extension of the time limit for lodging their Statement of Grounds of Appeal, from 26 September 2025 to 10 October 2025, citing the exceptional circumstance that both lead attorney and lead patent attorney were unavailable due to professional constraints including an EPO oral hearing. |
| 2025-09-23 | UPC_CoA_755/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop313 | Procedural | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal (Panel 1a: Grabinski, Gougé, Blok) admitted Apple Inc. as an intervener in the appeal proceedings (UPC_CoA_755/2025 and UPC_CoA_757/2025) brought by Sun Patent Trust against VIVO concerning confidentiality protection orders under R. 262A RoP for EP 3 407 524 and EP 3 852 468. Apple was admitted because it is a party to the confidential licence agreements that VIVO's employees would have access to under the impugned orders, giving Apple a sufficient interest to intervene in support of Sun Patent Trust. Apple was given 15 days to file a Statement in intervention. |
| 2025-07-12 | APL_55849/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | Court of Appeal order (12 July 2025) in proceedings between Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy and Microsoft Corporation and others. Only digital signatures are present in the extracted text; the substantive content of this order cannot be determined from the available material. |
| 2025-07-12 | APL_19133/2025 | Court of Appeal | Request for a discretionary review (RoP 220.3) | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal issued a very short order in Microsoft v Suinno (UPC_CoA, R. 220.3 RoP discretionary review proceedings). The document contains only digital signatures and minimal content, indicating a short procedural decision. Based on the document's minimal text, this appears to be a formal procedural order closing or acknowledging the proceedings. |
| 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_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 | 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. |
| 2025-06-02 | 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. |
| 2025-05-26 | 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. |
| 2025-03-28 | 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. |
| 2025-02-24 | 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 | 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. |
| 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. |
| 2024-12-19 | UPC_CoA_523/2024 | Court of Appeal | Procedural Order | Procedural | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal (Second Panel) ruled on admission of new evidence in the appeal by Sumi Agro against the Munich Local Division's provisional measures order in favour of Syngenta concerning EP 2 152 073. Exhibit SA17 (new pages from a publication already partly submitted at first instance) was disregarded as Sumi Agro failed to justify why these additional pages could not have been submitted earlier. Syngenta's Exhibits FF28-29 were also disregarded. However, Syngenta's Exhibits FF24-27 (concerning a possibly changed version of the contested Kagura product) were admitted, as they related to new evidence about a product modification. |
| 2024-12-10 | UPC_CoA_470/2023 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | — | outcomeName.other | Order of the Court of Appeal dated 10 December 2024 setting aside the CFI order imposing penalty payments (Zwangsgelder) on NanoString for alleged violations of a preliminary injunction that had been previously revoked by the CoA. The CoA held that the revocation of a preliminary injunction under Art. 75(1) UPCA and R. 242.1 RoP is retroactive — the revoked order is treated as having never had legal effect. Consequently, any subsequent order imposing penalties based on the revoked injunction also lacks legal basis, even if it concerns alleged violations before the revocation. The CFI penalty order was set aside, 10x Genomics' applications were dismissed, 10x was ordered to bear all costs, and NanoString's payment made in compliance with the penalty order was to be reimbursed. |
| 2024-12-10 | UPC_CoA_470/2023 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | — | outcomeName.other | The Court of Appeal revoked the Munich Local Division's order imposing penalty payments on NanoString for breach of a provisional injunction regarding EP 4 108 782, and rejected 10x's requests. The Court held that the Court of Appeal's earlier revocation (26 February 2024) of the provisional injunction order of 19 September 2023 had retroactive effect, meaning that the order was void ab initio and therefore could not serve as a valid legal basis for any penalty order, even for alleged breaches prior to the revocation. 10x was ordered to bear the costs of both instances and to reimburse the amount paid by NanoString. |