UPC Analytics
ENDE

Decisions

DateCaseDivisionActionMotionOutcomeSummary
2025-11-18UPC_CFI_1600/2025Dusseldorf LDApplication for preserving evidence pursuant to RoP192EvidenceProcedural onlyThe Düsseldorf Local Division granted an ex parte order for inspection and preservation of evidence at Tonglu Qianyan Medtech's exhibition booth at the MEDICA trade fair, to establish whether a 'disposable morcellator' infringes LiNA Medical's EP 2 593 025 B1.
2025-11-18UPC_CFI_1598/2025Dusseldorf LDApplication for preserving evidence pursuant to RoP192EvidenceProcedural onlyThe Düsseldorf Local Division granted an ex parte order for inspection and preservation of evidence at Schultz Medical's exhibition booth at the MEDICA trade fair in Düsseldorf, to establish whether the 'MORCELLIX' morcellator implements the claims of LiNA Medical's EP 2 593 025 B1.
2025-11-18UPC_CFI_804/2025Munich LDInfringement ActionProceduralProcedural onlyOrder of the President of the Court of First Instance granting TP-Link's application under R.323 RoP to change the language of proceedings from German to English. The court held that only one of the seven defendants is based in Germany, that the relevant technology field predominantly uses English, and that the need for internal coordination and technical support among defendants justified the change on grounds of fairness under Art.49(5) UPCA.
2025-11-18UPC_CFI_187/2024The Hague LDInfringement ActionInfringement meritsNot infringedThe Hague Local Division decided in proceedings on infringement and counterclaim for revocation concerning Advanced Cell Diagnostics' RNAscope technology patents (EP 1 910 572 and EP 2 500 439) against Molecular Instruments; the decision addressed novelty, inventive step, and infringement of in situ hybridisation method claims.
2025-11-17UPC_CFI_1589/2025Dusseldorf LDApplication for an Order for inspection pursuant to RoP199EvidenceProcedural onlyThe Düsseldorf Local Division granted an ex parte order for inspection and preservation of evidence at the PRODUCTRONICA trade fair in Munich regarding a wire processing machine 'BZW-3005' by Jiangsu BOZHIWANG, prior to a main infringement action by Komax.
2025-11-17UPC_CFI_885/2025Dusseldorf LDApplication for an Order for inspection pursuant to RoP199EvidenceProcedural onlyThe Düsseldorf Local Division ordered the release of an expert report obtained during an earlier trade fair inspection (EMO Hannover) to OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH, ruling on the redaction of trade secrets (prices, quantities, customer bank details) while allowing disclosure of technical measurements relevant to infringement.
2025-11-17UPC_CFI_858/2025Lisbon LDInfringement ActionProceduralProcedural onlyThe Lisbon Local Division (judge-rapporteur Rute Lopes) rejected Zentiva Portugal's preliminary objection challenging UPC jurisdiction over Boehringer Ingelheim's infringement action concerning EP 1 830 843 (nintedanib for treatment of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis). The Court held that the action is an Art. 32(1)(a) UPCA infringement action based on an administrative notice (INFARMED No. 0689/2024) creating a threat of infringement, and UPC jurisdiction is properly established. Zentiva's additional argument (no demonstrated acts of manufacture etc.) was held to be a substantive merits defence outside the scope of R. 19 RoP.
2025-11-17UPC_CFI_541/2025Dusseldorf LDApplication Rop 265ProceduralWithdrawnThe Düsseldorf Local Division permitted the claimant to withdraw the infringement action against Defendant 2 (Wizart LLC) under R. 265.1 RoP after Defendant 1 asserted that Wizart LLC was a non-existent entity; the statement of claim had not yet been served on Defendant 2.
2025-11-13UPC_CFI_321/2025The Hague LDInfringement ActionInfringement meritsWithdrawnThe Hague Local Division recorded the withdrawal of AdvanSix Resins & Chemicals LLC's infringement action against Troy Chemical and Azelis entities concerning EP 3 286 270, with 60% of court fees reimbursed (€96,600) and certain documents declared confidential pursuant to R. 262.2 RoP.
2025-11-13UPC_CFI_321/2025The Hague LDInfringement ActionInfringement meritsWithdrawnDuplicate of the Hague Local Division decision recording AdvanSix's withdrawal of the infringement action against Troy Chemical and Azelis entities (EP 3 286 270), with 60% court fee reimbursement and confidentiality order.
2025-11-12UPC_CFI_407/2025Brussels LDApplication for an Order for inspection pursuant to RoP199EvidenceProcedural onlyReview order by the Brussels Local Division following an ex parte order for preservation of evidence/inspection pursuant to Rule 197.3 RoP in Genentech/Roche v Organon proceedings. The court confirmed the inspection orders with modifications, set a deadline for expert reports, and set a 31-day (or 20 working day) term for initiating infringement proceedings after receipt of the experts' report.
2025-11-12UPC_CFI_837/2024Dusseldorf LDApplication Rop 333ProceduralProcedural onlyThe Düsseldorf Local Division panel dismissed the defendants' application under R. 333.1 RoP to review the judge-rapporteur's order refusing to extend deadlines for filing rejoinder and related submissions in the American Wave Machines v. Surftown wave-machine patent case.
2025-11-11UPC_CFI_879/2025Mannheim LDApplication For CostsCostsWithdrawnThe Mannheim Local Division permitted the withdrawal of Faro Technologies' application for cost assessment (Kostenfestsetzung) against Blankenhorn GmbH following an out-of-court settlement between the parties, with no costs order.
2025-11-11UPC_CFI_515/2025Dusseldorf LDApplication for provisional measuresProceduralProcedural onlyThe Düsseldorf Local Division deemed service of the HP preliminary injunction application on Shenzhen Moan Technology Co. (Defendant 2) to be good service under R. 275.2 RoP, after the Chinese central authority failed to process the Hague Convention request for several months.
2025-11-11UPC_CFI_771/2025Munich LDInfringement ActionProceduralProcedural onlyThe Munich Local Division reviewed a confidentiality order (R. 333 RoP) and upheld admission of Solvay's employee to the confidentiality club in the fluoropolymer infringement proceedings, finding that employment within the claimant's economic unit was sufficient grounds for admission.
2025-11-07UPC_CoA_900/2025Court of AppealApplication Rop 223ProceduralDismissedCourt of Appeal (judge-rapporteur) rejected Lepu Medical's application for suspensive effect of its appeal against a preliminary injunction granted by the Hamburg Local Division in favour of Occlutech. The CoA held that Lepu failed to demonstrate that the impugned order contained manifest errors or that the appeal would become devoid of purpose without suspensive effect. Lepu's claim that enforcing the injunction would damage its reputation was insufficient to outweigh Occlutech's interest in preventing imminent patent infringement.
2025-11-07UPC_CFI_1041/2025Dusseldorf LDGeneric OrderProceduralProcedural onlyThe Düsseldorf Local Division ruled on Micron's application to extend procedural deadlines (preliminary objections and statement of defence) in a large-scale YMTC v. Micron patent infringement campaign, partially granting extended deadlines.
2025-11-07UPC_CoA_579/2025Court of AppealApplication for provisional measuresPreliminary injunctionPI deniedCourt of Appeal allowed OTEC's appeal and set aside the first-instance order granting provisional measures to STEROS. The CoA found the appeal successful and ordered that STEROS's application for provisional measures be rejected. STEROS was ordered to bear the costs of both the first-instance and appeal proceedings.
2025-11-07UPC_CoA_579/2025Court of AppealApplication for provisional measuresProceduralProcedural onlyThe Court of Appeal (Panel 1a: Grabinski, Gougé, Blok, Meewisse, Schmidt) partially granted STEROS GPA Innovative S.L.'s application for rectification (R. 353 RoP) of the Court of Appeal's order of 7 November 2025 which had set aside the Hamburg Local Division's provisional measures grant and rejected the application for provisional measures concerning EP 4 249 647. The court corrected a clerical mistake in margin 45 (Table 1 changed to Table 10), but rejected STEROS' further argument that margin 43 contained an 'obvious slip' since the proposed change would affect the substance of the reasoning.
2025-11-06UPC_CFI_723/2025Dusseldorf LDApplication for provisional measuresProceduralProcedural onlyDüsseldorf Local Division procedural order in Align Technology's application for provisional measures against Angelalign. The order addresses Angelalign's request for security for costs under R. 158.1 RoP based on Align Technology's US domicile and assesses whether enforcement of a cost order would be unduly burdensome. This order was issued before the final provisional measures order of 12 February 2026.
2025-11-06UPC_CFI_1443/2025Hamburg LDApplication for provisional measuresPreliminary injunctionPI grantedHamburg Local Division granted ex parte provisional measures (preliminary injunction) against Fileder Filter Systems Sp. z o.o. (Poland) for infringement of Brita SE's EP 2 131 940 B1 (water filter device with locking shaft). The injunction covers Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Germany, Finland, France, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Austria, Portugal, Romania, Sweden and Slovenia. Security of EUR 50,000 and provisional cost reimbursement of EUR 34,700 ordered.
2025-11-06UPC_CoA_897/2025Court of AppealApplication Rop 223ProceduralDismissedThe Court of Appeal dismissed Black Sheep Retail Products' application for suspensive effect of an appeal against the Hague Local Division's infringement decision (10 October 2025), which found EP 2 432 351 valid and infringed and ordered BSRP to disclose information to HL Display. The Court held that suspensive effect is the exception, not the rule, and that enforcement of information orders may only be suspended in exceptional circumstances. No such exceptional circumstances (manifest error, or appeal becoming devoid of purpose) were shown. BSRP failed to establish that providing the information would cause irreparable harm.
2025-11-05UPC_CoA_762/2024Court of AppealAppeal RoP220.1motionName.appeal_decisionRevokedCourt of Appeal decision (English) – duplicate/related filing to UPC_CoA_773/2024. Same substantive outcome: Seoul Viosys's LED patent claims 1, 4, 5, 6, and 9 revoked for added matter; all infringement claims dismissed; Viosys ordered to bear costs of both instances.
2025-11-05UPC_CoA_762/2024Court of AppealAppeal RoP220.1motionName.appeal_decisionRevokedGerman-language version of the Court of Appeal decision (UPC_CoA_762/2024 and 773/2024) in Seoul Viosys v expert. Claims 1, 4, 5, 6 and 9 of the LED patent revoked for added matter. All infringement claims dismissed. Viosys ordered to bear all costs for both instances.
2025-11-05UPC_CoA_773/2024Court of AppealAppeal RoP220.1motionName.appeal_decisionRevokedCourt of Appeal decision (English) on the appeal in the counterclaim for revocation and the related infringement action concerning Seoul Viosys's EP (LED patent, EP 698). The CoA found added matter in claim 1 of the patent (content extended beyond the earlier application as filed, particularly regarding embodiments with a single mesa). Claims 1, 4, 5, 6 and 9 revoked. Infringement action dismissed. Viosys ordered to pay expert's costs for both appeal and first instance proceedings. Key headnotes: court may raise added matter of its own motion; translation of international application governs content; patentee must demonstrate inaccuracy of its own translation.
2025-11-05UPC_CFI_461/2024Hamburg LDInfringement ActionProceduralProcedural onlyHamburg Local Division correction order (R. 353 RoP) correcting several errors in the judgment of 5 November 2025 in Dolle v. Fakro concerning EP 2 476 814 B1. Corrections included party representative name, address, patent claim reference number errors, and addition of the defendants' counterclaims relating to conditional auxiliary requests.
2025-11-05UPC_CFI_461/2024Hamburg LDInfringement ActionInfringement meritsInfringedHamburg Local Division found that Fakro entities infringed Dolle A/S's European Patent EP 2 476 814 B1 (roof window with priority claim). The Court granted an injunction, recall of infringing products, removal from distribution channels, provision of information and damages assessment deferred. Fakro's counterclaim for revocation was rejected. The Court confirmed that 'the same invention' in Art. 87 EPC is interpreted by the direct-and-unambiguous disclosure standard.
2025-11-03UPC_CFI_662/2025Mannheim LDInfringement ActionInfringement meritsDismissedThe Mannheim Local Division rejected the preliminary objection (R.19 RoP) filed by multiple Geely group defendants challenging the jurisdiction and competence of the Mannheim Local Division. The Court found it had jurisdiction under Art. 33(1)(b) UPCA over all defendants as they are members of the same corporate group, share business relations as required, and face the same infringement allegation regarding the same patent claim. The Court also established that the requirement of a 'business relationship' under Art.33(1)(b) UPCA does not require complete identity of infringing acts but merely that the accused acts are aligned in purpose. The infringement action on the merits continues.
2025-11-03UPC_CFI_104/2025Paris CDRevocation ActionProceduralProcedural onlyThe Central Division Paris issued a procedural order under R. 340 RoP joining the counterclaim for revocation from the Munich Local Division to the pending revocation action before the Central Division Paris, to avoid contradictory decisions on EP 3 812 870.
2025-11-03UPC_CFI_666/2024The Hague LDInfringement ActionProceduralProcedural onlyThe Hague Local Division issued a post-interim-conference order in Adeia Guides v. Walt Disney entities (EP 1 969 839, electronic programme guide patent), setting out decisions on scheduling and procedural steps following the interim conference.
2025-10-31UPC_CoA_755/2025Court of AppealGeneric applicationProceduralDismissedCourt of Appeal dismissed Vivo's request to stay the first-instance proceedings (UPC_CFI_361/2025 and UPC_CFI_263/2025) and extend time limits pending the appeal proceedings. The CoA held that R.21.2 RoP (stay in context of preliminary objection appeal) cannot be applied by anticipation before an appeal against the preliminary objection order has been lodged. Under R.295 RoP, the CoA is generally not the appropriate body to decide on stays of first-instance proceedings, as the CFI is better placed to manage its own case.
2025-10-31UPC_CFI_630/2025Dusseldorf LDApplication for provisional measuresPreliminary injunctionPI deniedThe Düsseldorf Local Division dismissed the application for provisional measures filed by Occultech GmbH against Lepu Medical (Europa) Cooperatief U.A. and others concerning EP 1 998 686 B2. The court found that the requirements for a preliminary injunction were not met (infringement not established with sufficient certainty), and ordered the applicant to bear the costs. The case value was provisionally set at EUR 1,000,000.
2025-10-30UPC_CFI_1325/2025Dusseldorf LDApplication for an Order for inspection pursuant to RoP199EvidenceProcedural onlyThe Düsseldorf Local Division granted an ex parte order for inspection and preservation of evidence at the Aquanale trade fair in Cologne regarding the defendants' 'InverJet' counter-current swimming device, in anticipation of a main infringement action.
2025-10-30UPC_CFI_361/2025Paris LDInfringement ActionInfringement meritsDismissedThe Paris Local Division (full panel: Lignieres, Kupecz, Gillet) rejected Vivo's preliminary objection challenging UPC jurisdiction and the internal competence of the Paris Local Division in Sun Patent Trust's SEP/FRAND infringement action concerning EP 3 852 468. The Court held that UPC jurisdiction is established under Art. 33(1)(a) UPCA because an allegedly infringing Vivo product was offered and delivered to a French customer via Fnac.com, constituting a harmful event in France. Vivo's additional argument that only a FRAND defence (not a FRAND main claim) falls within UPC jurisdiction was deferred to the main proceedings under R. 20.2 RoP.
2025-10-30UPC_CFI_362/2025Paris LDInfringement ActionProceduralProcedural onlyPreliminary objection (R.19 RoP) decided by the Paris Local Division. The court rejected the jurisdictional challenge raised by Vivo (that the UPC lacks jurisdiction over an active FRAND determination request as the main claim), holding that the UPC has jurisdiction to hear the infringement action including FRAND aspects, and that the Paris Local Division is internally competent under Art.33.1(a) UPCA on the basis of alleged infringing sales in France. The preliminary objection was deferred/rejected and the case proceeds on the merits.
2025-10-30UPC_CoA_8/2025Court of AppealApplication For CostsCostsCosts onlyThe Court of Appeal (Panel 1b: Grabinski, Gougé, Germano, Checcacci, Wilhelm) ordered Bhagat Textile Engineers to provide security for costs of EUR 19,000 (50% of the applicable ceiling) within 10 days in the appeal against the Milan Local Division's infringement judgment concerning EP 2 145 848. The court rejected Oerlikon's request for security regarding first-instance costs already awarded (as those are a matter of enforcement). Security was justified by Bhagat's financial difficulties, the non-enforceability of UPC orders in India, and Bhagat's explicit acknowledgment that it cannot pay the first-instance costs.
2025-10-30UPC_CoA_8/2025Court of AppealApplication For CostsCostsCosts onlyItalian-language version of the Court of Appeal order (Panel 1b) ordering Bhagat Textile Engineers to provide security for costs of EUR 19,000 in the appeal concerning EP 2 145 848. Identical substance to the English version: security ordered based on Bhagat's financial difficulties and non-enforceability of UPC orders in India. Request for security covering first-instance costs rejected.
2025-10-29UPC_CFI_743/2025Munich LDInfringement ActionProceduralProcedural onlyOrder of the President of the Court of First Instance granting Skechers' application under R.323 RoP to change the language of proceedings from German to English. The court held that all Skechers subsidiaries except one are based outside Germany, that the group's internal working language is English, and that conditions of enforcement of any future judgment were of lesser relevance than the parties' coordination needs during proceedings.
2025-10-28UPC_CFI_729/2025Munich LDInfringement ActionProceduralProcedural onlyThe Munich Local Division ordered Claimant 2 (ParTec AG) to provide security for costs of EUR 85,000 in favour of the defendants, finding insufficient evidence of ParTec's financial capacity; the application against Claimant 1 (BFexaQC AG) was rejected for lack of any financial information.
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.
2025-10-27UPC_CFI_178/2024Milan LDInfringement ActionInfringement meritsRevokedThe Milan Local Division revoked EP 2 726 230 B1 (mesh production method and device) in its entirety following the defendants' counterclaim, dismissed the application to amend the patent, and dismissed the infringement action; claimant Progress Maschinen bore the majority of costs.
2025-10-27UPC_CFI_178/2024Milan LDInfringement ActionProceduralProcedural onlyThe Milan Local Division issued a rectification order under R. 353 RoP correcting an inaccuracy in the header of its 27 October 2025 decision by adding the full list of defendants' legal representatives (Studio Legale Costa-Creta).
2025-10-24UPC_CFI_ 478/2025n/AUPC_CFI_ 478/2025The Hague LDInfringement ActionProceduralProcedural onlyThe Hague Local Division issued an order under R. 275 RoP on service of the statement of claim on Chinese defendants (Xinji group companies) via the Hague Service Convention, noting that both formal and voluntary informal service are admissible methods.
2025-10-24UPC_CFI_612/2024Paris LDInfringement ActionInfringement meritsNot infringedThe Paris Local Division dismissed Raccords et Plastiques Nicoll's infringement action against First Plast and related defendants for EP 3 272 938 (invisible drainage channel grating), finding neither literal nor equivalence infringement of the patent claims by the 'Ghost' grille product.
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.
2025-10-22UPC_CFI_587/2025The Hague LDApplication for provisional measuresPreliminary injunctionPI deniedThe Hague Local Division dismissed Abbott Diabetes Care's application for provisional measures against Sinocare and A.Menarini Diagnostics concerning EP 3 988 471, finding that the GlucoMen iCan device does not infringe claim 1 because event data icons are displayed in a separate panel rather than within the timeline graph.
2025-10-22UPC_CFI_575/2025Mannheim LDPreliminary objectionmotionName.jurisdictionalProcedural onlyThe Mannheim Local Division (judge-rapporteur Marjolein Visser) ruled on a preliminary objection filed by the defendants in an infringement action by Honeywell Control Systems Ltd. concerning EP 2 563 695 B1. The court dismissed the request to transfer the case to The Hague regarding Sovex Systems (D1) and the other Dutch defendants (D2-D6), finding that the Mannheim Local Division has competence under Art. 33(1)(a) UPCA based on alleged infringement occurring in Germany. The request to dismiss for lack of international jurisdiction over Hemtech (D7, Bosnia) was also addressed.
2025-10-21UPC_CFI_553/2025Hamburg LDApplication for provisional measuresPreliminary injunctionPI grantedThe Hamburg Local Division granted Occlutech GmbH's application for a preliminary injunction against Lepu Medical Technology (Beijing) Co. Ltd. and Lepu Medical (Europe) Cooperatief U.A. for threatened infringement of EP 2 387 951 (braided occlusion device). The Court held that CE-mark approval for the defendants' competing medical device constituted imminent infringement under R. 206.2(c) RoP, regardless of whether the applicant had prior knowledge. An injunction was issued prohibiting offering, placing on the market, and use in Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands, and Ireland. Value: EUR 1,000,000; defendants bear costs.
Page 5 of 36 · 1,785