| 2026-01-30 | UPC_CFI_365/2023 | Mannheim LD | Infringement Action | Infringement merits | outcomeName.other | The Mannheim Local Division confirmed the earlier imposition of penalties order of 20 January 2026 against Kodak GmbH and related entities for non-compliance with a final judgment requiring provision of financial and technical information to FUJIFILM Corporation (EP 3 511 174). The Court rejected Kodak's challenge and upheld the maximum daily penalty as justified given the extent and seriousness of the non-compliance. Leave to appeal was granted to develop UPC case law on enforcement measures. |
| 2025-12-12 | UPC_CFI_766/2025 | Milan LD | Infringement Action | Procedural | Procedural only | The Milan Local Division ordered alternative service on Shenzhen Asmax Infinite Technology Co. under the Hague Service Convention after two failed service attempts (rejected by Chinese authorities due to incorrect reference to Hong Kong), applying Art. 15(2) of the Convention. |
| 2025-10-15 | UPC_CFI_115/2025 | Dusseldorf LD | Generic Order | Revocation merits | Partially revoked | The Düsseldorf Local Division found that the infringement action failed (patent not infringed) while partially upholding the defendants' counterclaim for revocation: the patent EP 2 755 901 B1 (egg packaging) was revoked in part, with the counterclaim otherwise dismissed. Priority, inventive step, and equivalence were the key issues. |
| 2025-07-23 | UPC_CFI_365/2023 | Mannheim LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | Mannheim Local Division issued an enforcement order imposing penalty payments on Kodak entities for non-compliance with the obligation to destroy infringing embodiments under a prior decision. The Court granted Fujifilm's application for imposition of penalties for each week of non-compliance, while rejecting other enforcement requests. Defendants bear the costs. |
| 2025-06-17 | UPC_APP_27069/2025 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal declared inadmissible Knaus Tabbert AG's 'Gegenvorstellung' (objection to the rejection of its stay application under R. 223 RoP), holding that a mere challenge to the reasoning of the appellate order denying a suspensive effect does not constitute an admissible procedural remedy, and that new facts about third parties' financial situation that could have been raised at first instance are not admissible. |
| 2025-06-17 | UPC_APP_27069/2025 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | Procedural | Dismissed | The Court of Appeal (Panel 2) declared inadmissible Knaus Tabbert AG's 'Gegenvorstellung' (objection) filed against the Court of Appeal's earlier rejection of Knaus Tabbert's application for suspensive effect (R.223 RoP). The Court held that an objection which merely challenges the Court of Appeal's legal opinion expressed in the order rejecting a suspensive effect application is inadmissible. The infringement action by Yellow Sphere Innovations GmbH and Erwin Härtwich regarding EP 3 356 109 (vehicle frame with foam resin structural part) continues. |
| 2025-05-21 | UPC_APP_21951/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 223 | Procedural | Dismissed | Court of Appeal (Panel 2) rejected Knaus Tabbert AG's application for suspensive effect (R. 223 RoP) pending appeal against a first-instance infringement decision in Yellow Sphere Innovations GmbH / Härtwich v. Knaus Tabbert (Düsseldorf Local Division, EP 3 356 109, vehicle frame with foam resin). The court held: (1) no obviously wrong application of law regarding infringement; (2) enforcement security was within the first-instance court's discretion and Knaus Tabbert failed to raise financial vulnerability of claimant in first instance; (3) the proportionality finding on recall, removal from channels of commerce and destruction was not evidently wrong; (4) the appeal would not become devoid of purpose if enforcement proceeded. |
| 2025-05-21 | UPC_APP_21951/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 223 | Procedural | Injunction denied | The Court of Appeal denied Knaus Tabbert AG's application for suspensive effect of the Dusseldorf Local Division's order of 10 April 2025 (UPC_CFI_50/2024) granting Yellow Sphere and Härtwich an infringement injunction concerning EP 3 356 109 (vehicle frame). The Court found no manifest error in the first-instance decision and no risk of the appeal being rendered devoid of purpose by enforcement. Key headnote: security for enforcement is a discretionary power of the CFI; arguments about the claimant's financial situation cannot be raised for the first time before the Court of Appeal if they could have been raised at first instance. |
| 2025-04-02 | UPC_CFI_365/2023 | Mannheim LD | Generic Order | Infringement merits | Infringed | The Mannheim Local Division found that Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, and Kodak Holding GmbH infringed EP 3 511 174 (relating to printing plate technology) owned by FUJIFILM. The defendants were ordered to cease infringement, provide information, destroy infringing products, recall products from commerce, and pay FUJIFILM EUR 300,000 as an interim award on legal costs. The counterclaim for revocation was dismissed. The value of the dispute was set at EUR 15,000,000. |
| 2025-04-02 | UPC_CFI_365/2023 | Mannheim LD | Generic Order | Procedural | Procedural only | Mannheim Local Division separated and ordered independent proceedings for claims and counterclaims relating to the UK national part of European patent EP 3 511 174, following the ECJ's judgment in C-339/22 (BSH Hausgeräte) regarding UPC's jurisdiction under Brussels Ia Regulation. The Court acted after awaiting the ECJ decision which was delivered after the oral hearing. |
| 2025-01-30 | UPC_CFI_359/2023 | Mannheim LD | Infringement Action | — | Procedural only | Pre-trial order of Mannheim Local Division in FUJIFILM v Kodak (EP 3 476 616) setting out preliminary views and questions from the judge-rapporteur in advance of the oral hearing. The order identifies key issues on claim construction, novelty and inventive step (prior art: WO 379, US 952, EP 452, JP 021, EP 408) and directs the parties' attention to specific technical questions requiring focused argument at the hearing. |
| 2025-01-22 | UPC_CFI_365/2023 | Mannheim LD | Infringement Action | Procedural | Procedural only | The Mannheim Local Division issued a preparatory procedural order ahead of the oral hearing in a patent infringement action brought by Fujifilm against Kodak entities concerning EP 3 511 174. The order set out preliminary views and questions on contested legal and technical points, including cross-border relief for the UK, interpretation of main vs. subsidiary requests, and claim construction, without making any final substantive ruling. |
| 2025-01-14 | CC_17292/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Counterclaim for revocation | Revocation merits | Permanent injunction | The Düsseldorf Local Division found that Mammut Sports Group AG and GmbH infringed EP 3 466 498 B1 (owned by Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH, relating to a transceiver device for avalanche rescue) and dismissed the counterclaim for revocation, maintaining the patent. The Court granted an injunction, ordered product recall and removal from distribution channels, ordered disclosure of information and accounting, and awarded EUR 3,000 in provisional damages. Indirect infringement was found because Mammut induced end-users to activate the infringing feature. The Court rejected the request for publication of the decision as Ortovox's interests were sufficiently protected by the injunction. 80% of infringement action costs borne by claimant (Ortovox) and 10% each by defendants; counterclaim costs borne equally by defendants. |
| 2024-01-25 | UPC_CFI_452/2023 | Dusseldorf LD | Application for provisional measures | Procedural | Procedural only | The Düsseldorf Local Division panel issued a procedural order in the Ortovox v. Mammut provisional measures case, setting out the criteria for reviewing a unilateral (ex parte) provisional measures order under Rule 212.3 / 197.3-4 RoP, and noting that the patent's validity must be sufficiently established before granting provisional measures. |
| 2024-01-24 | UPC_CFI_452/2023 | Dusseldorf LD | Application for provisional measures | Procedural | Procedural only | The Düsseldorf Local Division issued a procedural order in the Ortovox v. Mammut provisional measures proceedings, directing the respondents (Mammut) to re-upload their inspection requests in the dedicated CMS workflow for Rule 212.3 RoP applications within a set deadline. |
| 2023-12-11 | UPC_CFI_452/2023 | Dusseldorf LD | Application for provisional measures | Preliminary injunction | PI granted | The Düsseldorf Local Division granted an ex parte order for provisional measures (Rule 212.1 RoP) in favour of Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH against Mammut Sports Group AG and Mammut Sports Group GmbH, in relation to EP 3 466 498 B1 covering an avalanche transceiver (Lawinen-Verschütteten-Suchgerät). |