| 2025-07-01 | ORD_31755/2025 | Court of Appeal | Generic Order | Procedural | Procedural only | Order from the Court of Appeal (UPC_CoA_542/2025 and UPC_CoA_526/2025) staying appeal proceedings concerning security for costs in full, following the insolvency of the Easee companies. Both Easee and Visibly had cross-appealed the Hamburg Local Division's order requiring EUR 75,000 security for the revocation action. The Court of Appeal stayed both appeals pursuant to R. 295m RoP due to insolvency proceedings regarding the Easee companies. |
| 2025-06-26 | APL_36389/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | Dismissed | Court of Appeal (26 June 2025) rejected Ballinno's appeal against (1) the security for costs order of EUR 56,000, and (2) the CFI's cost order. As Ballinno had withdrawn its requests for provisional measures on appeal, the action was declared devoid of purpose and disposed of under R. 360 RoP. Ballinno was ordered to bear the Kinexon companies' and UEFA's legal costs for the appeal proceedings. Value of dispute set at EUR 100,000. |
| 2025-06-26 | UPC_APP_28639/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 223 | Procedural | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal (Panel 2: Kalden, Rombach, Simonsson) granted suspensive effect to the managing director's appeal and provisionally granted suspensive effect to the Easee companies' appeal pending clarification of their representation authority (following insolvency), against the Hamburg Local Division's order requiring Easee to provide security for legal costs of EUR 75,000 for the revocation counterclaim proceedings. The court found the managing director's arguments on the impermissibility of security for costs for defendants in revocation proceedings raised an obvious legal error. |
| 2025-06-20 | UPC_CoA_393/2025 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | — | Dismissed | The Court of Appeal allowed AorticLab's appeal and set aside the Munich Local Division's order granting Emboline's application for security for costs. The CoA held that Art. 69(4) UPCA provides no legal basis for a security for costs at the request of the claimant in an infringement action in response to a defendant's counterclaim for revocation. Allowing such security would unreasonably restrict the defendant's right to raise an invalidity defence by means of a mandatory counterclaim. |
| 2025-06-19 | UPC_APP_8340/2025 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | motionName.appeal_decision | Dismissed | Court of Appeal Panel 2 rejected Alexion Pharmaceuticals' application for rehearing (R. 245 RoP) of the earlier Court of Appeal order dismissing Alexion's appeal against the Hamburg Local Division's denial of provisional measures. Alexion had alleged fundamental procedural defects (new claim interpretation standard applied without being heard, and incorrect facts). The Court held that no fundamental procedural defect within the meaning of Art. 81(1)(b) UPCA / R. 247(c) RoP was established. Alexion ordered to bear Samsung's costs of the rehearing proceedings. |
| 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. |
| 2025-06-06 | UPC_CoA_618/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | — | Costs only | The Court of Appeal ruled on a late application for a costs determination (R. 151 RoP) filed by the Hanshow entities (appellants/applicants at first instance in a costs procedure) arising from failed provisional measures proceedings against SES-imagotag SA. The CoA held that the one-month deadline under R. 151.1 RoP begins from service of the provisional measures order (not the merits decision) when no merits proceedings are initiated, and that a missed deadline can only be remedied by re-establishment of rights (R. 320 RoP). A party that succeeds in costs proceedings must still bear its own costs attributable to those proceedings (except the court fee). |
| 2025-06-06 | UPC_CoA_618/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | — | Dismissed | Court of Appeal rejected Hanshow's appeal against a cost decision. The Court held that an application for a cost decision under R.151 RoP must be lodged within one month of service of the decision. This time period cannot be extended; failure can only be remedied through re-establishment of rights under R.320 RoP. Hanshow's late application for a cost decision was therefore time-barred. |
| 2025-06-05 | UPC_APP_24411/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 365 | Procedural | Settled | The Court of Appeal confirmed a settlement agreement between Tandem Diabetes and Roche Diabetes, terminating the appeal proceedings. The settlement arose after the Central Division Paris had dismissed the revocation action and maintained EP 2 196 231 as granted. |
| 2025-06-04 | APL_13146/2025 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal ruled that when adjudicating on a request for imposition of periodic penalty payments pursuant to Rule 354.4 RoP, the composition of the court must be a panel and not a single judge. The impugned order issued by a single judge was set aside in that part. |
| 2025-05-30 | APL_68523/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal partially allowed Belkin's appeal and reduced the penalty payment (Zwangsgeld) imposed by the Munich Local Division for non-compliance with a disclosure order to EUR 42,000, while dismissing Philips's cross-appeal regarding disclosure in electronic form, and setting a new costs allocation. |
| 2025-05-30 | APL_68523/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Costs only | The Court of Appeal (Panel 2) ruled on Belkin's appeal and Philips' cross-appeal against the Munich Local Division's order on penalty payments for non-compliance with an information disclosure obligation following the infringement judgment in UPC_CFI_390/2023 (Philips v Belkin, EP patent not specified in excerpt). The CoA modified the first-instance order: a penalty payment of EUR 42,000 was imposed on Belkin for failing to comply with the information disclosure order. The court established key principles on time periods for information disclosure under Art. 67(1) UPCA, the punitive nature of penalty payments even after belated compliance, burden of proof, and the permissibility of paper format for information. Costs were shared proportionally as both parties were partially unsuccessful. |
| 2025-05-30 | UPC_CoA_845/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | — | Procedural only | Rectification order of the Court of Appeal correcting an obvious clerical error in the order of 30 May 2025 (Belkin v Philips, penalty payment proceedings). The phrase 'Local Division Düsseldorf' is replaced by 'Local Division Munich' throughout the operative part. |
| 2025-05-23 | UPC_APP_23301/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 265 | Procedural | Withdrawn | The Court of Appeal permitted NJOY Netherlands B.V. to withdraw its appeal against a Paris Central Division decision dismissing its revocation action against Juul Labs. The proceedings were declared closed and the scheduled oral hearing cancelled. NJOY's application for reimbursement of court fees was also addressed. NJOY had limited its appeal to the issue of costs allocation in the revocation proceedings. |
| 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. |
| 2025-05-08 | ORD_16127/2025 | Court of Appeal | Generic Order | motionName.jurisdictional | Procedural only | Court of Appeal order changing the language of appeal proceedings from Danish to English with the agreement of both parties under Art. 49(4) UPCA and R. 322 RoP. The underlying appeal concerned the Copenhagen Local Division's refusal to order respondents to pay periodic penalty payments for non-compliance with a prior injunction. The Court of Appeal agreed the language change was appropriate given the limited scope of the appeal and both parties understanding English, and addressed translation costs of existing pleadings. |
| 2025-05-05 | ORD_21186/2025 | Court of Appeal | Decision By Default | Default judgment | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal ruled on issues of public access to the register under R.262.1(b) RoP and clarified the legal framework for reasoned decisions and default decisions, holding that access to written pleadings should not be granted to unrepresented members of the public and that costs should not normally be awarded in R.262.1(b) proceedings. |
| 2025-05-05 | ORD_21232/2025 | Court of Appeal | Decision By Default | Default judgment | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal addressed procedural issues in Meril Italy's appeal, ruling that a decision issued when the respondent was not properly represented constitutes a default decision subject to Rule 356.1 RoP, and that unrepresented public members may not be granted access to pleadings under Rule 262.1(b) RoP. |
| 2025-05-05 | ORD_21240/2025 | Court of Appeal | Decision By Default | Default judgment | Procedural only | Decision by the Court of Appeal (UPC_CoA_636/2024, 5 May 2025) setting aside a first-instance order that had granted a member of the public access to written pleadings under R. 262.1(b) RoP. The CoA held that public applicants for register access must be represented; an unrepresented person cannot validly lodge a statement of response; a reasoned decision under R. 235.3 RoP is effectively a default decision; and no costs should ordinarily be awarded in R. 262.1(b) proceedings. |
| 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. |
| 2025-04-30 | UPC_APP_19228/2025 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | Court of Appeal (Panel 2) order staying appeal proceedings in a revocation action concerning EP 3 504 990 (a patent relating to nicotine/vaping products). The Central Division Paris had revoked the patent at first instance. Juul Labs appealed and applied for a stay pending parallel EPO opposition appeal proceedings (oral hearing scheduled for 14 November 2025). NJOY consented to the stay. The Court of Appeal granted the stay under R. 295(a) RoP / Art. 33(10) UPCA, finding that the EPO proceedings could be expected to conclude rapidly relative to the UPC's own timetable. |
| 2025-04-30 | UPC_APP_20180/2025 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | Court of Appeal order staying appeal proceedings in a revocation action concerning a patent for vaping/e-cigarette technology. The patent had been revoked at first instance (Central Division Paris). Juul Labs appealed and applied for a stay pending parallel EPO opposition appeal proceedings, which were accelerated with oral proceedings scheduled for 17 October 2025. NJOY agreed to the stay. The Court of Appeal stayed proceedings under R. 295(a) RoP as the EPO proceedings could be expected to conclude relatively quickly. |
| 2025-04-28 | UPC_APP_14082/2025 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | The UPC Court of Appeal granted Juul Labs International's application to stay the revocation appeal proceedings pending a final decision by the EPO Boards of Appeal in parallel opposition proceedings concerning EP3430921, noting that both parties agreed to the stay and that the EPO oral proceedings were scheduled for approximately the same time as the UPC appeal hearing. |
| 2025-04-25 | UPC_APP_16612/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application RoP262.1 (b) | Procedural | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal granted a member of the public (Nicoventures) immediate access to written pleadings and evidence under R. 262.1(b) RoP, subject to conditions restricting use of those documents in other proceedings until the appeal is resolved. |
| 2025-04-25 | UPC_APP_13365/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application RoP262.1 (b) | Procedural | Procedural only | Court of Appeal granted Nicoventures Trading Limited's request for access to written pleadings and evidence from appeal proceedings (Rule 262.1(b) RoP) involving Juul Labs and NJOY (nicotine product patents). Access was granted subject to conditions: Nicoventures may not file the pleadings with other courts (e.g. EPO Boards of Appeal) until the UPC appeal is closed, though it may use the arguments or prior art independently. Personal data in the documents was to be redacted by the Registry. Blanket requests for future documents were held inadmissible. |
| 2025-04-25 | UPC_APP_13352/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application RoP262.1 (b) | Procedural | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal granted Nicoventures Trading Limited access to specified written pleadings and evidence from the NJOY vs. VMR Products (Juul) appeal proceedings (UPC_CFI_310/2023), subject to the condition that the documents may not be filed with other courts or distributed until the appeal is concluded. |
| 2025-04-17 | UPC_APP_16648/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 223 | Procedural | Procedural only | Court of Appeal (Panel 2, Rian Kalden as rapporteur) dismissed Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH, and Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH's application for suspensive effect of the Mannheim Local Division's infringement judgment of 2 April 2025 against Kodak. The Mannheim Local Division had found infringement of Fujifilm Corporation's EP 3 511 174, ordered a permanent injunction, damages, information disclosure, product destruction and recall, and EUR 300,000 interim costs. The Court of Appeal held that Kodak had not demonstrated manifest errors in the first-instance decision – the complaints about priority, prior use rights, right to be heard, proportionality of injunction, and cost allocation did not reach the threshold of manifest error on a summary assessment. The Court also addressed R. 171.2 RoP (uncontested facts), clarifying that an uncontested fact does not automatically lead to the legal consequence for which it was invoked. |
| 2025-04-17 | UPC_APP_16915/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 223 | Procedural | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal, acting through the standing judge, dismissed Barco N.V.'s application for suspensive effect of its appeal against a cost order made against it following dismissal of its application for provisional measures before the Brussels Local Division (UPC_CoA_329/2025). The Brussels Local Division had found jurisdiction but dismissed the provisional measures for lack of urgency and ordered Barco to bear costs up to EUR 112,000. Barco sought suspensive effect only as to the cost order. The application was dismissed as the cost order was not immediately enforceable. |
| 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. |
| 2025-04-11 | UPC_APP_16735/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 265 | Procedural | Withdrawn | Order of Court of Appeal (Panel 2) allowing Ericsson's withdrawal of its appeal against the Local Division Munich's rejection of Ericsson's second counterclaim for revocation of EP 3 780 758 (counterclaim had been declared inadmissible as duplicative). The parties agreed each would bear their own costs. The appeal and the underlying second counterclaim for revocation were withdrawn. The court also granted 60% reimbursement of court fees. |
| 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 | ORD_8874/2025 | Court of Appeal | Generic Order | Procedural | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal (Standing Judge Ingeborg Simonsson) ruled on admissibility issues in Hanshow's appeal against the Munich Local Division's cost decision in VusionGroup's provisional measures proceedings (EP 3 883 277). The Court held that: (1) cost applications constitute summary proceedings; (2) R. 221 RoP does not always require a separate Statement of Appeal after leave to appeal; an application for leave to appeal that sets out the reasons and arguments may serve as both; (3) the Application for Leave treated as the Statement of Appeal was admissible. The Court addressed the substance of the appeal on this basis. |
| 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. |
| 2025-02-12 | ORD_7284/2025 | Court of Appeal | Generic Order | Procedural | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal addressed representation requirements in a public access-to-file case concerning EP 3 646 825, holding that lawyers and European Patent Attorneys are not exempt from the duty to be represented when they are parties before the UPC, and gave Respondents 14 days to appoint proper representatives. |
| 2025-02-12 | ORD_64355/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic Order | Procedural | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal ruled that lawyers and European Patent Attorneys are not exempt from the mandatory representation requirement under Rule 8.1 RoP when they are themselves parties before the UPC, and that representation is a public policy requirement the court may raise at any time. |
| 2025-02-12 | ORD_7289/2025 | Court of Appeal | Generic Order | Procedural | Procedural only | Court of Appeal order in Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. v. SWAT Medical AB / Respondent 1 concerning representation (R. 8.1 RoP). The appeal arose from a public access application (R. 262.1(b) RoP). The court held: (1) even lawyers and European Patent Attorneys who are themselves parties must be represented before the UPC; (2) representation is a public policy admissibility issue the court may raise at any time of its own motion; (3) Meril Life Sciences' late argument that the access request was inadmissible from the outset due to invalid representation was brought too late under R. 226 and R. 222.2 RoP. |
| 2025-01-24 | UPC_APP_1178/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 265 | Procedural | Withdrawn | Court of Appeal Panel 2 order permitting DexCom's withdrawal of its infringement appeal and declaring the proceedings closed. Background: the Paris Local Division had revoked EP 3 831 282 (continuous glucose monitoring) and dismissed all DexCom infringement claims; DexCom appealed but then applied to withdraw the action including the appeal. The withdrawal was permitted, proceedings closed, and 60% of appeal court fees refunded to DexCom. No costs decision required. |
| 2025-01-24 | ORD_3184/2025 | Court of Appeal | Generic Order | Procedural | Withdrawn | Court of Appeal order allowing withdrawal of the infringement appeal and counterclaim for revocation filed by DexCom against Abbott companies, pursuant to R. 265 RoP. The withdrawal was allowed, proceedings declared closed, and the impugned first-instance decision became ineffective. Court held that withdrawal may be filed in appeal proceedings, that withdrawal of a revocation counterclaim renders amendment requests ineffective, and that closure of proceedings renders the impugned decision ineffective. |
| 2025-01-20 | UPC_APP_283/2025 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | Costs | Dismissed | Court of Appeal dismissed SharkNinja's application for suspension of cost-determination proceedings (R. 295(d) RoP) as inadmissible, because the one-month period for filing a cost-determination application (R. 151 RoP) starts from service of the merits decision, not from service of the preliminary injunction order. Since no merits decision had yet been issued, the application was premature. The court further noted that R. 150/151 RoP apply by analogy where no main proceedings are initiated after unsuccessful provisional measures. |
| 2025-01-20 | UPC_APP_283/2025 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | Costs | Costs only | Court of Appeal (Second Panel) ruled on SharkNinja's application for a stay of cost assessment proceedings and/or extension of time. The Court held that the one-month period for lodging an application for a cost decision (R. 151.1 RoP) begins with service of the decision on the merits, not with service of the provisional measures order. The cost assessment was not stayed pending the merits proceedings. |
| 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. |
| 2025-01-13 | UPC_APP_68553/2024 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 265 | Procedural | Withdrawn | The Court of Appeal permitted Valeo Electrification's withdrawal of its provisional measures appeal action (and the underlying main proceedings before the first instance) following the parties' agreement. The appeal proceedings concerned a preliminary injunction granted by the Düsseldorf Local Division on 31 October 2024 against Magna PT for infringement of EP 3 320 602 in Germany and France. The parties agreed no cost decision was needed. |