Decisions
| Date | Case | Division | Action | Motion | Outcome | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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. |
| 2026-02-18 | UPC_CFI_466/2025 | Dusseldorf LD | Application RoP262A | Procedural | Procedural only | Provisional procedural order of the Düsseldorf Local Division (judge-rapporteur Dr. Zhilova) on an application by defendants Zapp AG and Zapp Precision Metals GmbH for protection of confidential information under Rule 262A RoP. The defendants sought to restrict access to specific paragraphs of their defense pleadings (Duplik) and certain exhibits (HE 137-145) as trade secrets. The order addressed the classification of the information as confidential and the specification of which persons would be granted access. |
| 2025-10-14 | UPC_CoA_699/2025 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | outcomeName.other | The Court of Appeal partly set aside a first-instance order on penalty payments in Fujifilm v Kodak. The court clarified the UPC penalty system under Rule 354.3 RoP, holding that a penalty order can be issued separately after the main decision. The court replaced the first-instance penalty orders with new orders: EUR 2,500/day from 23 July 2025 to 4 August 2025 and EUR 10,000/day thereafter for continued non-compliance by Kodak with orders on information, destruction, recall and removal from channels of commerce. |
| 2025-08-04 | UPC_CFI_519/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Generic Order | Procedural | Procedural only | Düsseldorf Local Division issued a procedural order on the handling of multiple related infringement actions and counterclaims for revocation concerning three patents, deciding on the approach under Art. 33(3)(a) UPCA before close of written procedure. |