| 2026-03-11 | UPC_CoA_934/2025 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | Settled | Court of Appeal accepted the withdrawal of the application for provisional measures following an out-of-court settlement between the parties. The Düsseldorf Local Division had previously granted provisional measures to Roche against Menarini entities. Following settlement, the proceedings were declared terminated. Each party bears its own costs. |
| 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. |
| 2026-01-15 | UPC_CFI_480/2025 | Milan CD | Revocation Action | Procedural | Procedural only | The Milan Central Division (full panel: Postiglione, Klein, Roselinger) rejected Fisher & Paykel's request to introduce auxiliary requests 2A to 13A as subsequent amendments to the patent (EP 4 185 356) in the revocation proceedings. The Court held that under R. 50.2 and R. 30.2 RoP, subsequent amendments are only allowed on an exceptional basis; the preclusive nature of the front-loaded system means that amendments must be made in full at the earliest stage. The efficiency of proceedings is not a sufficient reason to allow subsequent piecemeal amendments. |
| 2026-01-15 | UPC_CFI_480/2025 | Milan CD | Revocation Action | Procedural | Procedural only | Duplicate/version of the above order (same date and case) from the Milan Central Division rejecting Fisher & Paykel's request to introduce subsequent auxiliary requests 2A–13A for patent EP 4 185 356 in the revocation action brought by Fisher & Paykel against Flexicare. The reasoning and outcome are identical to the companion order. |
| 2025-12-10 | UPC_CFI_316/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Counterclaim for revocation | Revocation merits | Infringed | The Düsseldorf Local Division found indirect infringement of EP 2 061 575 B1 by Altech Makina and granted an injunction with removal from channels of commerce, while dismissing the revocation counterclaim; the infringement action was otherwise dismissed in part, with claimant bearing 30% and defendant 70% of costs. |
| 2025-10-14 | UPC_CFI_807/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Application Rop 333 | Procedural | Procedural only | The panel dismissed the defendants' application for review of a case management order (R. 333 RoP) concerning an auxiliary request for claim amendment in a stroller swivel-locking device infringement action. The judge-rapporteur's procedural order was confirmed. |
| 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. |
| 2025-02-25 | UPC_APP_608/2025 | Munich LD | Application Rop 333 | Procedural | Procedural only | The Munich Local Division panel reviewed the judge-rapporteur's decision to grant only 40% court fee reimbursement (rather than 60% sought by Panasonic) following settlement-based withdrawal of the infringement actions and counterclaims. |
| 2025-02-25 | UPC_APP_619/2025 | Munich LD | Application Rop 333 | Procedural | Costs only | Munich Local Division panel order reviewing (R. 333 RoP) the judge-rapporteur's earlier decision to refund only 40% of court fees following withdrawal of infringement actions and counterclaims (after out-of-court settlement) in patent proceedings by Panasonic Holdings Corporation against Xiaomi entities (UPC_CFI_220/2023) and Guangdong OPPO Mobile (UPC_CFI_221/2023) concerning EP 3 024 163. Panasonic argued a 60% refund was due. The panel confirmed the 40% refund rate, finding the withdrawals occurred after closure of the written procedure (R. 370.9(b)(ii) RoP). |
| 2024-12-26 | UPC_CFI_338/2023 | Paris CD | Revocation Action | Revocation merits | Patent amended | The Paris Central Division dismissed Advanced Bionics' revocation actions (main and counterclaims) against MED-EL's EP 4 074 373 B1 (MRI-safe disk magnet for cochlear implants), maintaining the patent in the amended version of Auxiliary Request 0a after overcoming added-matter objections; costs were allocated 70% to the claimants and 30% to the defendant. |
| 2024-09-02 | UPC_APP_33757/2024 | Munich LD | Application Rop305 | Procedural | Procedural only | The Munich Local Division considered Panasonic's application to extend the infringement action to add OTECH Germany GmbH as an additional defendant, with defendants opposing the late amendment request under Rule 305 RoP. |
| 2024-07-10 | UPC_APP_39247/2024 | Munich LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | Munich Local Division procedural order granting OPPO's request for an extension of the deadline for filing its rejoinder (Duplik) in infringement proceedings concerning a telecommunications patent owned by Panasonic. |
| 2024-07-06 | UPC_APP_15611/2024 | Munich LD | Application RoP262A | Procedural | Procedural only | Confidentiality order (R. 262A RoP) by Munich Local Division in Panasonic v OPPO/OROPE proceedings concerning EP 3 024 163. The court granted a confidentiality regime for disputed documents, granting each side (claimant: 3 persons, defendants: 4 persons) access to confidential materials. The scope was aligned with the handling in parallel proceedings against Xiaomi. |
| 2024-03-13 | UPC_CFI_354/2023 | Munich LD | Application for provisional measures | — | Settled | The Munich Local Division issued a decision confirming the settlement between the parties in provisional measures proceedings brought by Steindl Krantechnik against BEHA Bau- und Forstgreiftechnik concerning EP 3 287 315. Following the oral hearing of 30 January 2024, the parties reached a preliminary agreement and subsequently filed a settlement text under R. 365 RoP. The court confirmed the settlement, ordered its details to be kept confidential (R. 365.2 RoP), and noted that no separate costs decision was required as costs were regulated in the settlement. |
| 2023-12-04 | UPC_CFI_220/2023 | Munich LD | Infringement Action | Procedural | Procedural only | The Munich Local Division issued a further order in the consolidated Panasonic v. Xiaomi cases (UPC_CFI_213, 220, 224), granting deadline extensions for defendant groups and addressing service on foreign defendants including those domiciled in China and Hong Kong. |
| 2023-11-27 | UPC_CFI_220/2023 | Munich LD | Infringement Action | Procedural | Procedural only | The Munich Local Division issued a provisional order in three consolidated infringement cases (UPC_CFI_213, 220, 224) by Panasonic against ten Xiaomi entities, granting deadline extensions for defendants 3-6, 9-10 to file their defence and addressing service questions concerning Xiaomi entities domiciled in China and Hong Kong. |