| — | UPC_CFI_254/2025 | — | — | — | Procedural only | Procedural order granting confidentiality request (Rule 262A RoP) filed by Defendant MediaTek Germany GmbH in respect of information in its Statement of Defence (Non-Technical Part), including exclusion of the public from hearings and redaction of the decision for publication. Claimant Huawei confirmed the underlying non-disclosure agreement and did not oppose the request. |
| — | UPC_CFI_59/2025 | — | — | — | Costs only | The Munich Local Division ruled that the anti-anti-suit injunction application by Dolby International against Roku became moot after Roku voluntarily withdrew its US proceedings, declaring the application for provisional measures groundless and the earlier interim order void, with costs awarded against Roku. |
| — | UPC_CFI_755/2024 | — | — | — | PI granted | The Munich Local Division granted Avago Technologies an anti-suit/anti-enforcement injunction preventing Realtek Semiconductor from pursuing an anti-enforcement injunction in US proceedings that would block Avago from enforcing EP 1 770 912 before UPC courts, holding the UPC has jurisdiction for such provisional measures under Art. 32(1)(a)(c) UPCA. |
| 2026-03-26 | UPC_CFI_364/2025 | Paris CD | Counterclaim for infringement | Infringement merits | Settled | Decision of the Paris Central Division dated 26 March 2026 declaring the counterclaim for infringement (UPC_CFI_364/2025) closed following an out-of-court settlement between Belparts Group N.V. and IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland GmbH. This is the counterpart order to UPC_CFI_104/2025: the counterclaim for infringement by Belparts was withdrawn simultaneously with IMI's withdrawal of its revocation action following settlement. No cost decision was requested. |
| 2026-03-26 | UPC_CFI_104/2025 | Paris CD | Revocation Action | Revocation merits | Settled | Decision of the Paris Central Division dated 26 March 2026 declaring the revocation action (UPC_CFI_104/2025) and the counterclaim for infringement (UPC_CFI_364/2025) closed following an out-of-court settlement between IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland GmbH and Belparts Group N.V. IMI had commenced revocation proceedings in February 2025; Belparts had filed a counterclaim for infringement in April 2025. After the EPO Board of Appeal dismissed the appeal on 27 November 2025 and upheld the patent in amended form, the parties agreed to settle on 4 February 2026, requesting a stay. On 13 March 2026, Belparts withdrew the counterclaim for infringement and IMI withdrew the revocation action. No cost decision was requested. |
| 2026-03-25 | UPC_CoA_528/2024 | Court of Appeal | Withdrawal (RoP265) | Withdrawal | Withdrawn | Sanofi and Regeneron withdrew their application for rehearing (R.245 RoP) concerning the Court of Appeal's decision of 25 November 2025 (UPC_CoA_528/2024 and UPC_CoA_529/2024) which had rejected the revocation of EP 3 666 797 and set aside the Central Division Munich's first-instance decision. The application for withdrawal was permitted. The decision covers both UPC_CoA_528/2024 and UPC_CoA_529/2024. Court fees were to be reimbursed accordingly. |
| 2026-03-24 | UPC_CoA_44/2026 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 223 | Procedural | Procedural only | Order of the Court of Appeal (single judge) on an application for suspensive effect (Rule 223 RoP) filed by ALPINA Coffee Systems GmbH in its appeal against a Düsseldorf Local Division decision largely upholding CUP&CINO's infringement claim for EP 3 398 487 (milk frother). The Court of Appeal addressed the admissibility and merits of the suspensive effect application. The underlying first-instance decision had found infringement of EP 3 398 487 and rejected the revocation counterclaim. No final ruling on suspensive effect is visible from the excerpt; the order concerns procedural steps and assessment of the application. |
| 2026-03-24 | UPC_CoA_935/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 223 | Procedural | Procedural only | Court of Appeal dismissed the application for suspensive effect of an appeal against a default judgment of The Hague Local Division. The Court held that an application for suspensive effect must set out all reasons, facts, evidence and arguments at once; a second application is inadmissible unless new submissions could not reasonably have been made earlier. |
| 2026-03-24 | UPC_CFI_1049/2025 | Hamburg LD | Infringement Action | Infringement merits | Withdrawn | The Hamburg Local Division ordered reimbursement of 60% of court fees to claimant BTL Medizintechnik GmbH following the previously granted withdrawal of its infringement action before closure of the written procedure, applying R. 370.9(b)(i) RoP (2025 version). |
| 2026-03-23 | UPC_CFI_1963/2025 | Paris LD | Infringement Action | Procedural | Procedural only | Paris Local Division (panel, on R.333 review) upheld the Judge-Rapporteur's order of 17 February 2026 rejecting Bosch's preliminary objections to the territorial competence of Paris Local Division. The panel confirmed that Art. 33.1(b) UPCA requires only a commercial link between all defendants (not a direct link between the anchor defendant and each co-defendant), and that 'same infringement' means infringement of the same patent by all defendants, not identical products. |
| 2026-03-20 | UPC_CFI_1849/2025 | Dusseldorf LD | Application for an Order for inspection pursuant to RoP199 | Evidence | Procedural only | Order by the President of the Court of First Instance on HyGear B.V.'s request to change the language of the proceedings to the language of the patent (English) under Art. 49(5) UPCA and Rule 323 RoP. The case involves Topsoe A/S's inspection and evidence preservation order against HyGear, SYPOX GmbH, Josef Kerner Energiewirtschafts GmbH and Technical University of Munich concerning EP 3 802 413. Headnotes: when balancing interests on language change, defendant's position is decisive if interests are equal; efficient communication among defendants without translation is especially important in accelerated proceedings. |
| 2026-03-18 | UPC_CoA_930/2025 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Dismissed | The Court of Appeal dismissed EOFlow's appeal against the Milan Central Division's order denying EOFlow's request under R. 262.2 RoP to keep certain information confidential. The Court held that information disclosed to the opposing party without an order under R. 262A RoP or other restriction loses its character as a trade secret. A R. 262.2 RoP request does not automatically protect information from disclosure by the other party. Information relating to a settlement agreement was also no longer confidential because its substance had already been stated in the published court order. |
| 2026-03-18 | UPC_CFI_1357/2025 | Brussels LD | Generic Order | Procedural | Procedural only | Brussels 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. |
| 2026-03-16 | UPC_CoA_3/2026 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | Dismissed | The Court of Appeal dismissed Ecovacs' appeal against the Düsseldorf Local Division's refusal to grant an ex parte order for inspection and preservation of evidence (R. 197 RoP) regarding Roborock vacuum cleaners at the IFA 2025 exhibition. The Court held that Ecovacs had breached its duty of candour under R. 192.3 RoP by omitting and distorting material facts (including proportionality-relevant information) in its ex parte application, and that such omissions cannot be cured by later submissions. The appeal was therefore rejected and Ecovacs ordered to bear Roborock's appeal costs. |
| 2026-03-16 | UPC_CoA_904/2025 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal (Panel 1a) dismissed VIVO's appeal against the Paris Local Division's order deferring the decision on the admissibility of claim A.II of the Statement of Claim to the main proceedings. The CoA confirmed that the panel (not only the judge-rapporteur) was competent to make the deferral decision, and that the Paris LD did not exceed its margin of discretion. The appeal also concerned UPC_CoA_905/2025 (EP 3 852 468). |
| 2026-03-13 | UPC_CoA_922/2025 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Dismissed | Order by the Court of Appeal (Panel 1d, 13 March 2026) partially reversing the Paris Local Division's order of 27 November 2025 on international jurisdiction. The CoA held that UPC jurisdiction based on Art. 7(2) Brussels Ibis (place of damage) is limited to UPC territory and does not extend to infringement in non-member states (Switzerland, Spain, UK, Ireland, Norway, Poland). The first-instance decision to assert jurisdiction over non-UPC territories was set aside because Keeex's Statement of claim lacked the necessary facts to justify Art. 71b(3) jurisdiction. The case concerns patent EP 2 949 070 and defendants Adobe, OpenAI, Truepic, Joint Development Foundation and others. |
| 2026-03-13 | UPC_CoA_922/2025 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Dismissed | French version of the Court of Appeal order of 13 March 2026 (UPC_CoA_922/2025 and related cases 923-925/2025). Same decision as the English version: partial reversal of Paris Local Division order on international jurisdiction; UPC jurisdiction under Art. 7(2) Brussels Ibis limited to UPC territory; non-UPC national parts of EP 2 949 070 (CH, ES, GB, IE, NO, PL) outside UPC jurisdiction absent sufficient Art. 71ter(3) pleading. |
| 2026-03-13 | UPC_CFI_927/2025 | Milan CD | Revocation Action | Procedural | Procedural only | The Milan Central Division (full panel: Postiglione, Klein, Alt) ordered La Siddhi Consultancy Ltd. to provide security for legal costs of EUR 112,000 in favour of the defendants (Athena Pharmaceutiques and Substipharm) in the revocation action concerning EP 3 592 333. The Court found that La Siddhi's financial situation (thin equity margin of approximately GBP 27,000) gave rise to a legitimate concern that any costs order would not be recoverable. La Siddhi's claim to SME status was found unsubstantiated. Security may be provided by bank deposit or EU-licensed bank guarantee within six weeks. |
| 2026-03-13 | UPC_CFI_722/2025 | Milan CD | Revocation Action | Revocation merits | outcomeName.other | The 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). |
| 2026-03-11 | 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. |
| 2026-03-10 | UPC_CoA_37/2026 | Court of Appeal | Request for a discretionary review (RoP 220.3) | motionName.appeal_decision | Dismissed | Court of Appeal (standing judge) dismissed Angelalign's request for discretionary review under R.220.3 RoP against a procedural order of the Düsseldorf Local Division extending a deadline in provisional measures proceedings. The CoA found that no manifest error was demonstrated: the Local Division did not exceed its discretionary powers, correctly applied R.9.3(a) RoP, and properly exercised its discretion in allowing a late reply based on human error. The requirements for discretionary review were not met. |
| 2026-03-06 | UPC_CFI_282/2026 | Lisbon LD | Application RoP262.1 (b) | Procedural | Procedural only | Lisbon Local Division granted Gowling WLG's application for public access to pleadings filed in the closed preliminary injunction proceedings UPC_CFI_41/2025 (Boehringer v. Zentiva Portugal), pursuant to R. 262.1(b) RoP. Access to specific named pleadings was granted, but a general request for 'evidence' was rejected as insufficiently particularised. |
| 2026-03-06 | UPC_CoA_895/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 265 | Procedural | Settled | The Court of Appeal permitted Black Sheep Retail Products B.V.'s withdrawal of its appeal (UPC_CoA_895/2025 and UPC_CoA_896/2025) against the Local Division The Hague's decision of 10 October 2025 finding Black Sheep had infringed EP 2 432 351 and granting an injunction and corrective measures. The withdrawal was filed following settlement discussions, with HL Display's consent. The Court also granted Black Sheep's application for reimbursement of 60% of court fees under R. 370.9(b)(i) RoP. |
| 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. |
| 2026-03-04 | 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. |
| 2026-03-03 | UPC_CoA_887/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 265 | Procedural | Withdrawn | The Court of Appeal permitted Washtower's withdrawal of its application for provisional measures under R. 265 RoP and declared the proceedings closed. Washtower agreed to bear the costs of both first and second instance of the provisional measures proceedings. The Court also determined the value in dispute at 66% of the value of a permanent injunction, in accordance with the Court of Appeal's guidelines on cost ceilings for provisional measure proceedings not followed by a merits action. |
| 2026-03-03 | UPC_CFI_43/2025 | The Hague LD | Infringement Action | Infringement merits | Revoked | The Hague Local Division revoked Advanced Brain Monitoring's EP 2 437 696 B2 (position therapy device for sleep disorders) as lacking inventive step over JP748 prior art. The counterclaim for revocation by Philips succeeded and the infringement action was dismissed. |
| 2026-02-27 | UPC_CoA_884/2025 | Court of Appeal | Generic Order | Procedural | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal (judge-rapporteur Rian Kalden, Panel 2) rejected Sibio Technology Limited's request for further exchanges of written pleadings (R. 36 RoP) in the appeal against the Paris Central Division's decision dismissing the revocation action concerning EP 3 831 283 and maintaining the patent as granted. Abbott's auxiliary requests, already submitted and admitted at first instance, are part of the appeal proceedings without requiring re-filing. The written procedure is closed and the oral phase opened. |
| 2026-02-27 | UPC_CFI_344/2025 | Mannheim LD | Infringement Action | Procedural | Procedural only | The Mannheim Local Division (judge-rapporteur Johansson) ordered Defendant 1 (SZ DJI Technology Co., Ltd.) to pay a separate court fee for its counterclaim for revocation within 14 days, ruling that the fee already paid by Defendants 2-4 for their earlier counterclaim does not cover Defendant 1's subsequently filed separate counterclaim, even if the content is the same. Failure to pay may result in a default decision under R. 355 RoP. |
| 2026-02-26 | UPC_CoA_34/2026 | Court of Appeal | Request for a discretionary review (RoP 220.3) | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal addressed EOFlow's request for discretionary review (R.220.3 RoP) of the Milan Central Division's order of 4 December 2025 imposing penalty payments of EUR 150,000 for non-compliance with the provisional measures order (UPC_CoA_768/2024). EOFlow had appealed the penalty order (UPC_CoA_930/2025), which was dismissed by the Court of Appeal on 4 February 2026. The request for discretionary review was addressed following the CFI's referral to the panel. The final order was not fully captured in the available extract. |
| 2026-02-25 | UPC_CFI_692/2026 | Dusseldorf LD | Application for provisional measures | Preliminary injunction | PI granted | Düsseldorf Local Division granted provisional measures (preliminary injunction) against Yaham Recience Technology for infringement of EP 3 757 442 B1 (LED display module for temporary exhibition stands). The order was issued ex parte during the EuroShop trade fair in Düsseldorf, with penalty payments ordered for non-compliance and provisional cost reimbursement of EUR 400,000. |
| 2026-02-25 | UPC_CFI_1927/2025 | Dusseldorf LD | Application for provisional measures | Procedural | Procedural only | Düsseldorf Local Division issued a preliminary procedural order scheduling an oral hearing in the provisional measures proceedings by Ottobock against BrainPortfolio Inc. and BrainRobotics Inc. for 22 April 2026. The order set filing deadlines for the parties' written submissions in preparation for the hearing and invited parties to notify participants. This is a case management order with no substantive ruling on the merits. |
| 2026-02-25 | UPC_CFI_619/2025 | The Hague LD | Infringement Action | Procedural | Procedural only | The Hague Local Division addressed GSK's R.263 application to amend its claim and Moderna's R.9 application to dismiss late-filed submissions in a parallel mRNA vaccine infringement action. |
| 2026-02-25 | UPC_CFI_620/2025 | The Hague LD | Infringement Action | Procedural | Procedural only | The Hague Local Division issued a procedural order under Rule 9 RoP in GSK's infringement action against Pfizer/BioNTech entities concerning vaccine-related patents, addressing admissibility of submissions in GSK's Reply. |
| 2026-02-24 | UPC_CoA_10/2026 | Court of Appeal | Application RoP262.1 (b) | Procedural | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal ruled on public access to the register under R. 262.1(b) RoP in the Sumi Agro v Syngenta proceedings. The Court established that reasoned requests for written pleadings and evidence lodged at the Court of First Instance must be made to the relevant CFI Division, while requests for documents lodged at the Court of Appeal must be made to the CoA. The Court clarified the allocation of responsibilities between Registrar and Deputy-Registrar and held that a request for access must be specified and cannot require the Court to search and select documents based on relevance criteria set by the requesting party. The decision resolved a jurisdictional question about which court body handles public access requests. |
| 2026-02-24 | UPC_CoA_9/2026 | Court of Appeal | Application RoP262.1 (b) | Procedural | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal ruled on a request by Gowling WLG for public access to the register (R. 262.1(b) RoP) in the Boehringer Ingelheim v. Zentiva proceedings. The Court held that reasoned requests for access to written pleadings lodged at the Court of First Instance must be directed to the relevant CFI division, not the Court of Appeal. Gowling WLG's request for access to pleadings (excluding exhibits) was granted to the extent it did not relate to confidential information. The request for access to exhibits was dismissed as insufficiently specified. |
| 2026-02-24 | UPC_CoA_883/2025 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | motionName.appeal_decision | Dismissed | The Court of Appeal dismissed Suinno's application for rehearing (R. 245 RoP) of two earlier CoA decisions (order on security for costs and decision on default judgment). The Court found no fundamental procedural defect under Art. 81(1)(b) UPCA. Suinno failed to demonstrate that any procedural error was so serious as to constitute a fundamental defect, and the Court held that the right to be heard does not require exhaustive written responses to each argument. The applications for rehearing were therefore dismissed. |
| 2026-02-24 | UPC_CFI_337/2025 | Munich CD | Revocation Action | Revocation merits | Patent maintained | The Central Division (Munich) dismissed TCL Europe's revocation action against Corning's EP 3 296 274 (glass composition), finding all invalidity attacks unsuccessful. The patent was maintained as granted; TCL was ordered to bear Corning's legal costs. |
| 2026-02-24 | UPC_CFI_829/2024 | Munich CD | Revocation Action | Revocation merits | Revoked | The Central Division (Munich) revoked EP 2 611 800 (sugar compositions) in its entirety for Austria, Finland, France, Germany, Netherlands and Sweden, finding the claims lacked inventive step and the application to amend was dismissed. The defendant bears UPM's costs. |
| 2026-02-24 | UPC_CFI_735/2024 | Mannheim LD | Infringement Action | Infringement merits | outcomeName.other | The Mannheim Local Division issued a decision in TRUMPF Laser UK v. IPG Laser GmbH & Co. KG concerning EP 2 951 625 (optical apparatus for laser light), addressing infringement and a counterclaim for revocation; the outcome on infringement/validity requires additional pages not captured in the excerpt. |
| 2026-02-19 | UPC_CFI_283/2026 | Paris LD | Application RoP262.1 (b) | Procedural | Procedural only | The Paris Local Division (judge-rapporteur) granted Gowling WLG's application under R. 262.1(b) RoP for access to specific documents in the case file of UPC_CFI_697/2025 (Merz v Viatris provisional measures proceedings). Access was granted to certain procedural pleadings and exhibits concerning specific procedural issues (page limits in objections, extension of time in provisional measures proceedings, and the 'unreasonable delay' criterion under R. 211.4 RoP), but denied for other documents not relevant to the stated purpose. The application was found admissible as Gowling demonstrated a legitimate interest in understanding the court's handling of provisional measures. |
| 2026-02-19 | UPC_CFI_541/2025 | Dusseldorf LD | Infringement Action | Procedural | Procedural only | The Düsseldorf Local Division issued an order on Wizart's request for security for costs under R. 158 RoP in proceedings against Leap Tools (Canada), addressing whether the claimant's Canadian domicile and financial situation justify ordering security. |
| 2026-02-19 | UPC_CFI_26/2025 | Vienna LD | Infringement Action | Infringement merits | Not infringed | The Vienna Local Division dismissed both Messerle GmbH's infringement action and Sabert Corporation Europe's counterclaim for revocation concerning EP 3 705 415 B1 (a packaging-related patent). The infringement action was dismissed because the accused 'Tray2Go' product did not directly or equivalently infringe the patent claims — the Court found no technical-functional equivalence of the substitute means used in the accused product. The counterclaim for revocation was also dismissed, so the patent was maintained as granted. Each party bears its own costs (maximum EUR 600,000 total, split evenly between action and counterclaim). |
| 2026-02-18 | UPC_CoA_19/2026 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 223 | Procedural | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal (Panel 2: Kalden, Rombach, Simonsson) rejected Guardant Health's application for suspensive effect regarding the Paris Local Division's interim award of costs of EUR 400,000 ordered against Guardant following the rejection of its application for provisional measures concerning EP 3 443 066 (one of four patents originally asserted). The court found no manifest error in the CFI's interim costs award and dismissed the application. Sophia's request to set a payment deadline was also considered. |
| 2026-02-18 | UPC_CFI_616/2025 | The Hague LD | Infringement Action | Procedural | Procedural only | The Hague Local Division ruled on GSK's application to amend its claim under Rule 263 RoP and Moderna's application to dismiss late-filed submissions under Rule 9 RoP in patent infringement proceedings relating to mRNA vaccine technology. |
| 2026-02-18 | UPC_CoA_890/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application For Costs | Costs | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal set aside the Munich Local Division's orders requiring Syntorr LP to provide security for costs in infringement proceedings against Arthrex regarding EP 2 670 898. Identical reasoning to UPC_CoA_889/2025: ATE insurance with anti-avoidance endorsement sufficient; security for costs dismissed; bank guarantee ordered released. |
| 2026-02-18 | UPC_CoA_889/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application For Costs | Costs | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal set aside the Munich Local Division's orders requiring Syntorr LP to provide security for costs (EUR 2,000,000) in infringement proceedings against Arthrex. The court found that the existence of an after-the-event (ATE) litigation insurance policy with an anti-avoidance endorsement adequately addressed concerns about enforceability of a costs order, and therefore security for costs should not have been ordered. The bank guarantee provided by Syntorr was ordered to be released. |
| 2026-02-18 | UPC_CoA_744/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 265 | Procedural | Withdrawn | The Court of Appeal permitted Samsung Bioepis NL B.V.'s withdrawal of two applications for leave to appeal cost decisions (UPC_CoA_744/2025 and UPC_CoA_750/2025) in proceedings relating to provisional measures dismissed for lack of urgency before the Hamburg Local Division. Alexion consented to the withdrawal and waived any costs claim. The proceedings were declared closed with no costs order. |
| 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. |