| 2025-10-16 | UPC_CFI_564/2024 | Munich LD | Counterclaim for revocation | Revocation merits | Withdrawn | The Munich Local Division permitted the withdrawal of the defendants' counterclaim for revocation of EP 2 387 547 under R. 265.1 RoP, after the main infringement/revocation proceedings had already been decided on 22 August 2025 and within the appeal period, with no costs order by agreement of the parties. |
| 2025-08-22 | UPC_CFI_248/2024 | Munich LD | Infringement Action | — | Patent amended | Munich Local Division found infringement of EP 2 387 547 (water filter cartridge patent) in an amended form and issued a permanent injunction against the defendants (AQUASHIELD entities). The patent was maintained in an amended form pursuant to auxiliary requests. The Court also ordered disclosure of information and declared defendants liable for damages from 23 May 2019. The infringement claim was partly dismissed and costs split 50/50. |
| 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. |
| 2025-04-23 | UPC_CFI_452/2024 | Nordic-Baltic RD | Application Rop 265 | — | Withdrawn | The Nordic-Baltic Regional Division declared proceedings closed following the mutual withdrawal of Viking Arm AS's infringement action and Stanley Black & Decker's counterclaim for revocation concerning EP 3 953 541. Both parties consented to each other's withdrawal and agreed that no cost decision was required. |
| 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. |
| 2025-01-27 | UPC_CFI_244/2024 | Munich LD | Generic Order | — | Procedural only | The Munich Local Division ordered a small company (claimant in infringement proceedings, Snowpixie Co., Ltd.) to provide security for costs under Rule 158 RoP based on its operating losses and insufficient assets. The court reduced the security amount to reflect equity principles ensuring effective access to justice. The court also denied legal aid (Prozesskostenhilfe) to the claimant, finding it had sufficient resources given it was supported by a litigation funder. |
| 2025-01-27 | UPC_CFI_244/2024 | Munich LD | Generic Order | — | Procedural only | Procedural order requiring SnowPixie Co., Ltd. (defendant/applicant) to provide security for costs pursuant to Rule 158 RoP, in an amount below the EUR 260,000 demanded by the opposing party (claimant), taking into account SnowPixie's status as a small enterprise and equity considerations. The application for legal aid (Prozesskostenhilfe) was rejected. |
| 2024-08-19 | UPC_CoA_388/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic Order | — | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal partially granted Sibio's request for suspensive effect of their appeal, specifically to the extent that the first-instance provisional measures order erroneously covered Ireland (which had not ratified the UPCA and therefore was not a Contracting Member State). The erroneous extension to Ireland was identified as a manifest error. |