| 2025-12-10 | UPC_CFI_251/2025 | The Hague LD | Infringement Action | Procedural | Procedural only | The Hague Local Division issued a case management order addressing Maxell's 44 conditional auxiliary requests in infringement proceedings against Samsung concerning EP 2 061 230, requesting clarification on the reasonable number of auxiliary requests per R. 30.1(c) RoP. |
| 2025-11-19 | UPC_CFI_87/2025 | Dusseldorf LD | Generic Order | Procedural | Procedural only | The Düsseldorf Local Division ruled on InterDigital's application for a further round of written pleadings under R. 36 RoP against Disney entities in a video streaming patent case concerning EP 2 449 782. |
| 2025-10-30 | UPC_CFI_362/2025 | Paris LD | Infringement Action | Procedural | Procedural only | Preliminary objection (R.19 RoP) decided by the Paris Local Division. The court rejected the jurisdictional challenge raised by Vivo (that the UPC lacks jurisdiction over an active FRAND determination request as the main claim), holding that the UPC has jurisdiction to hear the infringement action including FRAND aspects, and that the Paris Local Division is internally competent under Art.33.1(a) UPCA on the basis of alleged infringing sales in France. The preliminary objection was deferred/rejected and the case proceeds on the merits. |
| 2025-10-13 | UPC_CFI_362/2025 | Paris LD | Infringement Action | Procedural | Procedural only | The Paris Local Division (judge-rapporteur Camille Lignieres) issued a preliminary order refusing Vivo's request to postpone the deadline for filing the Statement of Defence pending the outcome of Vivo's preliminary objection on UPC jurisdiction in the SEP/FRAND case (EP 3 407 524). The Court held that R. 19.6 RoP provides that the filing of a preliminary objection should not slow down the main proceedings in the absence of exceptional circumstances. Since Vivo would raise a FRAND defence in any event, no exceptional circumstances were established. The Statement of Defence remained due on 28 November 2025. |
| 2025-08-29 | ACT_19943/2025 | The Hague LD | Application for provisional measures | Preliminary injunction | PI denied | The Hague Local Division dismissed Cilag GmbH International's and Ethicon LLC's application for provisional measures (preliminary injunction) against RiVOLUTiON GmbH for alleged infringement of EP 3 689 262 (a staple cartridge patent for surgical staplers). The court found that the urgency requirement for provisional measures was not satisfied: Cilag had known or should have known by November 2024 (following a Bariatric Study result) of the potential infringement and related market risks, and had not filed the application promptly. The fact that a Sana group tender outcome became clearer later did not revive urgency as it was foreseeable. Cilag was ordered to pay EUR 80,000 as an interim costs award to RiVOLUTiON. Ancillary applications were also dismissed. |
| 2025-08-26 | UPC_CFI_362/2025 | Paris LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | Paris Local Division granted a three-week extension to Vivo entities for filing their Preliminary Objection and Statement of Defence in Sun Patent Trust's infringement action concerning EP 3 407 524, following the delay caused by confidentiality proceedings and the parties' voluntary agreement to grant access to unredacted files. |
| 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. |
| 2025-06-06 | UPC_CFI_324/2024 | Munich LD | Infringement Action | — | Patent amended | Infringement action by Tiroler Rohre GmbH (Austria) against SSAB Swedish Steel GmbH and SSAB Europe Oy concerning a driving pile tip device (Rammspitze) and EP 2 839 083 B9. The court found infringement of the patent as amended. It ordered: injunction, recall and destruction of infringing pile tips and moulds, disclosure of information, publication of decision in four trade journals. The invalidity counterclaim against the patent as originally granted was upheld in part (patent amended). Key headnotes: burden of proof for impossibility of infringement lies with defendant; infringement exists even if patented function only occasionally achieved. |
| 2025-06-06 | UPC_CFI_471/2023 | Mannheim LD | Infringement Action | — | Not infringed | The Mannheim Local Division ruled on the infringement action and revocation counterclaim regarding EP 2 479 680 (adaptive bitrate HTTP streaming). The infringement claim was dismissed as the defendants' systems did not literally or equivalently infringe the patent. The revocation counterclaim was dismissed; the patent was maintained in amended form under Auxiliary Request 12. Infringement costs were borne by the claimants; revocation counterclaim costs were borne by the defendants. Each party bore its own representation costs. The dispute value was set at EUR 20,000,000. |
| 2025-05-02 | UPC_CFI_86/2025 | Mannheim LD | Generic application | — | Procedural only | Order from the President of the Court of First Instance dated 2 May 2025, under R. 323 RoP, changing the language of proceedings in Mannheim Local Division case UPC_CFI_86/2025 to the language of the patent (as applied for by The Walt Disney Company entities as defendants). The order sets out principles on language change: the possibility of changing to the patent language does not conflict with the claimant's initial choice; the defendant's position is decisive when the balancing of interests is equal; and since the claimant has flexibility in choosing where to file, the language of the patent is generally not unfair to the claimant. |
| 2025-04-23 | UPC_CFI_471/2023 | Mannheim LD | Infringement Action | — | Procedural only | Pre-trial procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division in an infringement action concerning EP 2 479 680 (adaptive bitrate streaming), confirming the oral hearing date and identifying key contested issues, including claim construction of the HTTP streaming method claims, direct and equivalent infringement, and the defendant's invalidity counterclaim. The order is preparatory and contains no substantive ruling. |
| 2025-02-10 | UPC_CFI_640/2024 | Munich LD | Application For Costs | — | Costs only | Decision of the Munich Local Division on a costs assessment (Kostenfestsetzung) following withdrawal of an application for provisional measures by SSAB Europe Oy and SSAB Swedish Steel GmbH against Tiroler Rohre GmbH after the oral hearing. The first-instance court had previously ordered Tiroler Rohre (the unsuccessful PI applicant) to bear costs including preparation of the protective brief. The costs decision addressed the reasonableness of hours billed by claimants' legal representatives, making deductions for excessive time entries across multiple tasks (protective brief, main PI proceedings, e-mail correspondence). Allowable costs were calculated for one attorney-at-law, one patent attorney, and a second patent attorney. |
| 2024-10-24 | UPC_APP_33127/2024 | Munich LD | Generic application | Costs | Withdrawn | Munich Local Division decision following the applicant Tiroler Rohre GmbH's withdrawal of an application for provisional measures (R. 265 RoP) after the oral hearing and after the court had indicated concerns about granting the measures. The court dismissed the respondents' (SSAB) opposition to the withdrawal, holding that a legitimate interest in obtaining a substantive decision does not arise merely because the respondents incurred costs defending against the application, even where the applicant has announced forthcoming main proceedings on the same subject matter. The court also declined to order a preliminary costs decision in favour of respondents following withdrawal. |
| 2024-10-20 | UPC_CFI_471/2023 | Mannheim LD | Generic application | — | Procedural only | Procedural order on a request for disclosure of information about the configuration and coding scheme of video files (Rule 191 RoP). The court declined to order disclosure at this stage due to the uncertain validity of the patent, finding it would be disproportionate to require defendants to provide the requested technical information before validity is established. |
| 2024-05-16 | UPC_CFI_372/2023 | Paris CD | Revocation Action | Procedural | Costs only | The Paris Central Division addressed allocation of costs following the patent proprietor's immediate surrender of EP 3 170 639 B1 in response to a revocation action, holding it is generally unfair to impose costs on a proprietor who immediately surrenders when confronted with new prior art, particularly where no prior warning notice was required. |