UPC Analytics
ENDE
Analytics47Cases29Decisions33Judges109Parties14Firms

Decisions

DateCaseDivisionActionMotionOutcomeSummary
2026-03-18UPC_CFI_1357/2025Brussels LDGeneric OrderProceduralProcedural onlyBrussels Local Division ordered Establishment Labs SA to provide security for costs of EUR 600,000 within 21 days in both UPC_CFI_1357/2025 and UPC_CFI_629/2026 proceedings concerning EP 3 107 487 B1. The Court held that the claimant's non-EU incorporation (Costa Rica) and concerns about recoverability of a cost order justified the security requirement, rejecting other elements of the defendants' R. 158 application.
2026-03-13UPC_CFI_722/2025Milan CDRevocation ActionRevocation meritsoutcomeName.otherThe Milan Central Division ordered disposal of Neurocrine Biosciences' revocation action (R. 360 RoP) against EP 3 784 233 because the patent had been definitively and entirely revoked by the EPO Opposition Division, rendering the revocation action devoid of purpose. Neurocrine's conditional request (disposal only if Spruce undertook not to enforce divisional patents) was held outside R. 360 RoP. Spruce (claimant/respondent) was ordered to pay 80% of maximum recoverable costs (EUR 488,000) to Neurocrine; Neurocrine was reimbursed 60% of court fees (EUR 12,000).
2026-02-13UPC_CFI_770/2024Milan LDInfringement ActionProceduralProcedural onlyThe Milan Local Division issued a post-interim-conference order in Pirelli v. Sichuan Yuanxing Rubber, resolving preliminary objections (with SYR withdrawing a service objection) and addressing admissibility of photographs and product samples from the earlier seizure.
2026-02-11UPC_CFI_351/2024Dusseldorf LDInfringement ActionInfringement meritsInfringedThe Düsseldorf Local Division found Canon's developer supply container patent EP 3 686 683 infringed by Katun and General Plastic entities, granting an injunction and ordering defendants to publish the operative part of the decision on their websites; the counterclaim for revocation was dismissed.
2026-01-15UPC_CFI_1357/2025Brussels LDPreliminary objectionmotionName.jurisdictionalProcedural onlyThe Brussels Local Division issued a procedural order on a preliminary objection (R. 19 RoP) filed by GC Aesthetics and Romed N.V. challenging jurisdiction in the infringement action brought by Establishment Labs S.A. concerning EP 3 107 487 B1 (breast implant).
2025-12-29UPC_CFI_351/2024Dusseldorf LDInfringement ActionProceduralProcedural onlyThe Düsseldorf Local Division addressed Canon's request for simultaneous interpretation from English into Japanese during the oral hearing, for corporate representatives joining remotely from Japan.
2025-12-19UPC_CFI_681/2024Munich LDCounterclaim for revocationRevocation meritsNot infringedThe Munich Local Division dismissed both the infringement action (UPC_CFI_437/2024) brought by GXD-Bio Corporation and the counterclaim for revocation (UPC_CFI_681/2024) brought by the Myriad defendants, concerning EP 3 346 403 (a patent on data processing/gene expression analysis for identifying endogenous reference genes). The Court found no infringement because the accused products (Myriad test kits) did not use the claimed three-step normalization method — the products used a single-step average normalization that differed from the patented calculation method. The counterclaim for revocation was also dismissed, so the patent was maintained. Each party bears its own costs, with costs capped at EUR 600,000 total.
2025-12-10UPC_CFI_351/2024Dusseldorf LDGeneric OrderProceduralProcedural onlyThe Düsseldorf Local Division issued a post-interim-conference order in the Canon v. Katun proceedings, setting the feature breakdown of claim 1 of EP 3 686 683 to be used at the oral hearing.
2025-12-05UPC_CFI_414/2024Mannheim LDInfringement ActionInfringement meritsNot infringedDecision of the Mannheim Local Division dated 5 December 2025 dismissing Centripetal Limited's infringement action against Keysight Technologies entities for infringement of EP 3 821 580 (methods and systems for network protection). Centripetal alleged direct infringement of claim 16 and indirect infringement of claim 1 in Germany, Italy, France and the Netherlands. The panel found that the defendants' products (AppStack, SecureStack-SSL, Threat Simulator) did not read on the claims as construed: defendants denied in the oral hearing that the source code contained functionality for threat-metadata-based routing to a CAS (a claim requirement), and Centripetal failed to substantiate its contrary position with sufficient evidence or proof under R. 171 RoP. The conditional counterclaim for revocation was not decided as the condition (infringement finding) was not met. Centripetal was ordered to bear all costs of the infringement proceedings.
2025-12-05UPC_CFI_414/2024Mannheim LDInfringement ActionProceduralProcedural onlyProcedural order from the Mannheim Local Division dated 5 December 2025 rejecting Centripetal Limited's request to reopen the oral hearing and appoint an expert to review the source code of Keysight's products, filed on 24 November 2025 after the closure of the hearing. The court held that R. 114 RoP permits reopening only in exceptional cases identified during the oral hearing itself (e.g. for necessary additional testimony or experimental evidence emerging from the hearing) and is not available as a tool to introduce new infringement allegations after closure. Claimant's argument that defendants' counsel had made false statements about source code functionality was not sufficient to trigger R. 114 RoP. The request was rejected.
2025-11-20UPC_CFI_351/2024Dusseldorf LDGeneric OrderProceduralProcedural onlyThe Düsseldorf Local Division granted Canon's application for a further round of written pleadings under R. 36 RoP against Katun, to address the EPO Opposition Division's preliminary opinion and additional test purchases of allegedly infringing toner cartridge products.
2025-10-28UPC_CFI_555/2024Hamburg LDInfringement ActionProceduralProcedural onlyProcedural order summarising an online interim conference held on 22 October 2025. The judge-rapporteur set the value of the infringement action at EUR 3 million and the counterclaim for revocation at EUR 4.5 million (total EUR 7.5 million). The parties agreed to resolve reimbursable legal costs out of court at approximately 50% of the ceiling. The judge-rapporteur admitted the Patent Sale Agreement and Patent Assignment Agreement (Exhibits PS 11 and 12) to the file. No substantive ruling on infringement or validity was made.
2025-10-28UPC_CFI_537/2024Hamburg LDInfringement ActionProceduralProcedural onlyHamburg Local Division procedural order summarising the interim conference of 22 October 2025 in Malikie Innovations v. Nintendo, including case management orders: case value set at EUR 7.5 million (EUR 3m infringement + EUR 4.5m counterclaim), agreement on reimbursable legal costs (approximately 50% of ceiling), updates on parallel proceedings, and admission of second round of patent amendment auxiliary requests.
2025-10-27UPC_CFI_127/2025Milan LDApplication for preserving evidence pursuant to RoP192EvidenceProcedural onlyThe Milan Local Division, following panel review (R.333 RoP) at Xelom's request, confirmed the ex-parte evidence preservation order (sequestro / saisie) issued in favour of Prinoth S.p.A. against Xelom s.r.l. The order confirmed the preservation of evidence relating to EP 1 995 159 and EP 2 507 436 (snow grooming / ski slope preparation equipment). Key holdings: (1) For ex-parte evidence preservation, the court's assessment is necessarily ex ante and does not require proof of certain destruction—statistical probability of evidence alteration suffices. (2) Procedural correctness of the patent holder must be assessed relative to the patent at issue; references to foreign patent prosecution are irrelevant. (3) The adequate security (garanzia) must be proportionate to potential damage and costs of litigation at the evidence acquisition stage only, not projected across the entire future proceedings.
2025-10-23UPC_CFI_497/2024Milan CDRevocation ActionRevocation meritsPatent amendedThe Central Division Milan rejected the revocation action by bioMérieux against Labrador Diagnostics' EP 3 756 767 B1 (diagnostic test patent), maintaining the patent in amended form pursuant to Auxiliary Request 3; bioMérieux was ordered to pay EUR 400,000 in legal costs to Labrador.
2025-07-31UPC_CFI_382/2025Milan CDApplication For Costs—Costs onlyDecision on costs from the Milan Central Division dated 31 July 2025 in proceedings where Novartis AG sought reimbursement of costs from Zentiva K.S. and Zentiva Portugal Lda following the dismissal of Zentiva's revocation action against EP 2 501 384. The court dismissed Novartis' costs application because Novartis failed to comply with the court's request under R. 156.1 RoP to provide substantiated evidence of costs (itemised hourly rates and hours), instead providing only a sworn general statement. The court held that: (1) once a R. 156.1 request is issued, costs can no longer be assessed equitably but only on proof; (2) confidentiality cannot be invoked to withhold cost information from the court; (3) costs for legal representation are not per se confidential under R. 262A RoP.
2025-07-18CC_54050/2024Milan CDCounterclaim for revocationProceduralProcedural onlyThe Milan Central Division issued a procedural order following an interim conference in this counterclaim for revocation, setting the schedule and framework for the oral hearing and managing witness declarations.
2025-07-18ACT_48305/2024Milan CDRevocation ActionProceduralProcedural onlyProcedural order issued after the interim conference of 14 July 2025 in a revocation/counterclaim for revocation action concerning EP 3 756 767. The order sets out case management decisions including the oral hearing schedule, treatment of declarants, submission deadlines, and requests parties to agree on the value of the action.
2025-07-15UPC_APP_24226/2025Milan LDApplication Rop 365ProceduralSettledMilan Local Division received Pirelli Tyre S.p.A.'s application under Rule 365 RoP to record a settlement agreement with Kingtyre Deutschland GmbH (effective 25 February 2025) in an infringement action over EP 2 519 412. The proceedings against Kingtyre Deutschland were to be withdrawn pursuant to the settlement; the settlement amount was to remain confidential. The case against Tianjin Kingtyre Group Co., Ltd. (no settlement) continues with all of Pirelli's claims maintained.
2025-07-14UPC_APP_26266/2025Milan LDGeneric applicationProceduralProcedural onlyThe Milan Local Division rejected Sichuan Yuanxing Rubber's application for re-establishment of rights under Rule 320 RoP to file a late request for review of the provisional seizure order executed at the EICMA trade fair, finding that Pirelli had properly served the order at the time of execution despite the respondent's refusal to accept service.
2025-06-12UPC_CFI_351/2024Dusseldorf LDGeneric OrderProceduralProcedural onlyProcedural order in Canon v. Katun/General Plastic infringement action. The Düsseldorf Local Division decided under R. 37.2 RoP to proceed jointly with both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation (Art. 33(3)(a) UPCA) for reasons of efficiency, allowing validity and infringement to be decided on a unified factual record.
2025-04-23UPC_CFI_537/2024Hamburg LDApplication RoP262AProceduralProcedural onlyProcedural order granting Nintendo's request for confidentiality protection (Rule 262A RoP) of sales data in their Statement of Defence. Access to unredacted information restricted to two named reliable persons on the Claimant's side, subject to conditions. Claimant's request for access for two specific employees was accommodated.
2025-04-10UPC_APP_10151/2025Milan CDApplication RoP262.1 (b)ProceduralProcedural onlyThe Milan Central Division granted ALIUD PHARMA's application for access to pleadings filed in closed proceedings between Accord Healthcare and Novartis (EP 2 501 384) under R. 262.1(b) RoP, after Novartis withdrew its objection following settlement of the main proceedings.
2025-03-18UPC_CFI_127/2025Milan LDApplication for preserving evidence pursuant to RoP192EvidenceProcedural onlyThe Milan Local Division granted Prinoth S.p.A. an order for preservation of evidence, inspection and seizure against Xelom S.r.l. concerning EP 1 995 159 and EP 2 507 436 (snow grooming vehicles), in advance of main proceedings.
2025-02-27UPC_APP_7494/2025Nordic-Baltic RDApplication Rop 265ProceduralSettledThe Nordic-Baltic Regional Division declared provisional measures proceedings between Fapa Vital AG and Valentis Baltic UAB concerning EP1978949 closed following the applicant's withdrawal after a settlement, ordered 60% reimbursement of court fees under R.370.9(b)(i) RoP, and declined to issue a cost decision as agreed by the parties.
2025-02-27UPC_APP_5729/2025Milan CDApplication Rop 265ProceduralWithdrawnCentral Division Milan closed revocation proceedings UPC 57037/2024 filed by SharkNinja Italy S.R.L. against Dyson Technology Limited's EP 2 043 492. The parties had agreed to settle litigation and signed a term sheet. SharkNinja requested withdrawal of the revocation action with Dyson's consent. No cost decision was needed. SharkNinja was entitled to a 60% refund of court fees (EUR 12,000) under R. 370.9(b)(i) as the withdrawal occurred before closure of the written procedure. Value of the case set at EUR 500,000.
2025-02-27UPC_CFI_57/2024Milan CDGeneric application—SettledOrder from the Milan Central Division dated 27 February 2025 permitting SharkNinja Italy S.R.L. to withdraw its revocation action against Dyson Technology Limited (EP 2 043 492) following a settlement agreement. Claimant had filed a stay request on 3 January 2025 on grounds of a settlement term sheet, subsequently requested withdrawal on 3–4 February 2025, and Dyson consented. The proceedings were declared closed. A 60% reimbursement of court fees (EUR 12,000) was granted as the action was withdrawn before closure of the written procedure (R. 370.9(b)(i) RoP). No cost decision was required.
2025-02-03UPC_APP_68658/2024Milan CDApplication RoP262.1 (b)ProceduralDismissedApplication by STADAPHARM GmbH for public access to case documents under R.262.1(b) RoP (separate application number for the same underlying proceedings UPC_CFI_698/2024, Milan Central Division). Outcome identical to companion order: STADAPHARM's request to access documents was dismissed; NOVARTIS's request for legal cost compensation was dismissed. This appears to be the same decision issued under a different application reference number.
2025-02-03UPC_CFI_698/2024Milan CDApplication RoP262.1 (b)ProceduralDismissedApplication by STADAPHARM GmbH for public access to case documents under R.262.1(b) RoP in the proceedings before the Milan Central Division was dismissed. The court found that STADAPHARM's primary purpose was to expose Novartis's defence strategy in order to facilitate a parallel national (Munich OLG) proceeding rather than to exercise legitimate public oversight. Access was denied as it would create undue pressure on Novartis and undermine the integrity of the proceedings. NOVARTIS's request for costs was also dismissed.