Cases
Workhorse listing across all UPC cases. Filters apply across tabs.
| Date | Case | Division | Action | Motion | Outcome | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-08-01 | UPC_APP_33807/2025 | The Hague LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | The Hague Local Division issued a procedural order in two related provisional measures proceedings brought by Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. against Menarini and Sinocare concerning different patents but the same product (the GlucoMen iCan CGM system). The court addressed postponement of the oral hearing and various procedural measures given the related nature of the two applications. |
| 2025-08-01 | UPC_APP_33206/2025 | Mannheim LD | Generic application | Procedural | Dismissed | Mannheim Local Division dismissed Centripetal Limited's request under R. 36 RoP for permission to file an additional written pleading introducing a new infringement reading in proceedings against Keysight Technologies entities (EP 3 821 580). The court held: (1) introducing a new infringement reading at this stage would require a further brief from defendants and could not be prepared before the October 2025 oral hearing; (2) defendants' rejoinder was a proper reaction to claimant's new reading in the Reply, not new independent arguments; (3) the front-loaded UPC procedure does not allow new infringement readings to be added progressively; (4) claimant had known about the disputed functionality from 2023 ITC proceedings. |
| 2025-08-01 | UPC_APP_33539/2025 | Mannheim LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | Order of the Mannheim Local Division in Powermat Technologies v Anker Innovations rejecting the defendants' conditional request to stay the infringement proceedings (R. 295 RoP) pending a final decision on their FRAND counterclaim before the Munich Local Division. The court denied the stay at this stage. |
| 2025-08-01 | UPC_APP_33544/2025 | Munich LD | Application RoP262A | Procedural | Procedural only | Procedural order by Munich Local Division Panel 2 in Huawei Technologies v MediaTek (EP 4 142 215) granting MediaTek Germany's confidentiality application under R. 262A RoP over the non-technical part of its defence (Klageerwiderung), based on an extra-judicial NDA concluded between the MediaTek group and Huawei on 11 July 2025. |
| 2025-08-01 | UPC_APP_25317/2025 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | Court of Appeal (Second Panel) ruled on Strabag's and Chainzone's applications for confidentiality orders under R. 262A RoP in their appeal of the Swarco v. Strabag infringement decision from Vienna Local Division. The Court partly granted and partly rejected the applications, confirming that product characteristics not readily accessible to third parties constitute trade secrets, but rejected applications for information already submitted at first instance without a timely R. 262A request. |
| 2025-08-01 | UPC_CoA_70/2025 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | Court of Appeal ruled on confidentiality and access restriction requests in the STRABAG vs. SWARCO appeal proceedings. The Court clarified that access and use restrictions for information against a party and its representatives can only be ordered under R.262A RoP. A late application in appeal for restrictions on information filed in first-instance proceedings is inadmissible. The Court imposed confidentiality obligations on Swarco regarding Chainzone's product characteristics. |
| 2025-08-01 | UPC_CFI_40/2025 | Hamburg LD | Application For Costs | — | Costs only | Decision of Hamburg Local Division in Samsung Bioepis NL B.V. v Alexion Pharmaceuticals (EP 3 167 888) assessing the costs of appeal proceedings following the Court of Appeal's rejection (20 December 2024) of Alexion's appeal against the dismissal of its application for provisional measures against Samsung Bioepis' Epysqli biosimilar. The court allowed the costs for UPC representatives and patent attorneys but reduced costs claimed for UK solicitors whose involvement (at higher cost than the actual UPC representatives) was not demonstrated to be necessary. |
| 2025-08-01 | UPC_APP_43786/2024 | Hamburg LD | Generic application | Costs | Costs only | Hamburg Local Division (1 August 2025) issued a costs decision following the dismissal of Alexion Pharmaceuticals' provisional measures application against Samsung Bioepis. The court assessed Samsung Bioepis' recoverable litigation costs, disallowing the costs of two UK solicitors as disproportionate but allowing the costs of the private expert Prof. Kontermann and reasonable travel expenses. |
| 2025-08-01 | UPC_CFI_100/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Generic Order | Procedural | Procedural only | Procedural order requiring further written submissions from the parties in the infringement action concerning patent ownership and the presentation of exhibits. The court noted inconsistencies in the claimant's statements on patent ownership and directed supplementary presentations. |
| 2025-08-01 | UPC_CFI_54/2024 | Munich LD | Infringement Action | — | Revoked | Munich Local Division found that European Patent 2 391 947 (Headwater, relating to Android device network management) is invalid in all forms including as amended. The panel cancelled the second oral hearing planned for September 2025, indicating the patent was found invalid both as granted and in all amended forms proposed by Headwater. The infringement action was therefore dismissed. |
| 2025-07-31 | UPC_APP_34041/2025 | Munich LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | The Munich Local Division granted a short extension of the deadline for commenting on a R. 262.1(b) access-to-file application in NEC Corporation's SEP infringement proceedings against TCL, to ensure equal time limits for both parties. |
| 2025-07-31 | ACT_953/2024 | Nordic-Baltic RD | Infringement Action | Infringement merits | Infringed | Decision by Nordic-Baltic Regional Division (UPC_CFI_9/2024, 31 July 2025) finding Sioen NV liable for infringement of EP 2 186 428 B2 (protective workwear / clothing) across 16 UPC member states. An injunction was granted, product recall and destruction ordered, information on sales required, damages declared owing, and EUR 50,000 awarded as interim legal costs. All other requests were dismissed. |
| 2025-07-31 | UPC_CFI_382/2025 | Milan CD | Application For Costs | — | Costs only | Decision 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. |
| 2025-07-31 | UPC_CFI_361/2023 | Paris CD | Generic Order | — | Withdrawn | Decision of Central Division Paris Seat allowing Toyota Motor Europe's withdrawal of its revocation action against Neo Wireless GmbH & Co. KG (EP 3 876 490) under R. 265 RoP. The proceedings had previously been stayed by agreement of the parties. Toyota's withdrawal was consented to by Neo Wireless. The court partially granted the reimbursement of court fees: 40% under R. 370.9(b)(iii) RoP (after closure of the interim procedure but before the oral hearing). |
| 2025-07-30 | ACT_3932/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Infringement Action | Infringement merits | Revoked | The Düsseldorf Local Division dismissed Headwater Research LLC's infringement action against Samsung and revoked European patent EP 3 110 069 B1 to the extent of claim 1, on the basis of a successful counterclaim for revocation; all costs were borne by the claimant. The court also rejected a new argument on added matter as inadmissible under R. 9.2 RoP. |
| 2025-07-30 | UPC_APP_6997/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Generic application | Costs | Settled | The Düsseldorf Local Division declared the infringement proceedings between N.V. Nutricia and Nestlé Health Science (Deutschland) GmbH concerning EP2359858 closed following the claimant's withdrawal after an out-of-court settlement, and set the value of the infringement action at EUR 250,000 and the counterclaim for revocation at EUR 500,000 with 60% court fee reimbursement. |
| 2025-07-30 | UPC_APP_33426/2025 | Dusseldorf LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | Order of the Düsseldorf Local Division in Aesculap AG v Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe) (EP 2 892 442 B1) threatening penalty payments under R. 354 RoP. Following an injunction issued on 10 July 2025, Aesculap notified its intention to enforce and requested the court to threaten periodic penalty payments of up to EUR 30,000 per day for the defendant's non-compliance with the disclosure/accounting order. |
| 2025-07-30 | UPC_CFI_208/2024 | Munich LD | Application RoP262.1 (b) | — | Procedural only | Procedural order (in German) granting Renault SAS (a third party allegedly threatened with infringement of EP 1 770 912 B1 by Avago Technologies) access to the case file and register under Rule 262.1(b) RoP for the completed proceedings, which were terminated by withdrawal of both the infringement action and counterclaim for revocation. The court confirmed that third-party access may be granted to closed proceedings. |
| 2025-07-29 | ACT_7567/2025 | Munich LD | Infringement Action | Procedural | Procedural only | The Munich Local Division issued a scheduling order in the Jinko Solar v. LONGi solar patent infringement proceedings, setting dates for the interim conference (February 2026) and oral hearing (May 2026), and indicating that both infringement and validity would be handled by the Local Division. |
| 2025-07-29 | UPC_APP_33347/2025 | Munich LD | Application RoP262A | Procedural | Procedural only | The Munich Local Division issued a procedural order under Rule 262A RoP in the Jinko Solar v. LONGi Green Energy infringement proceedings concerning EP 4 372 829, addressing protection of confidential business information submitted in the case. |
| 2025-07-29 | UPC_APP_24515/2025 | Milan LD | Generic application | Costs | Costs only | The Local Division Milan dismissed Oerlikon's application under R.353 RoP to rectify an alleged clerical error in a costs decision, finding that the EUR 80,000 total in the operative part was correct and consistent with the reasoning, and that the phrase referencing an additional EUR 20,000 was merely a drafting slip that did not alter the actual intended amount. |
| 2025-07-29 | UPC_APP_33784/2025 | Munich LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | Munich Local Division (judge-rapporteur Dr. Zigann) granted a stay of both the infringement action (ACT_53813/2024) by Syngenta Limited against Sumi Agro entities concerning EP 2 152 073 and the counterclaim for revocation, at the joint request of all parties (R. 295(d) RoP). The stay may be lifted by any party after 30 September 2025. Scheduled hearing dates (interim conference 6 October 2025, oral hearing 10 December 2025) were cancelled. |
| 2025-07-29 | UPC_APP_31764/2025 | Mannheim LD | Application Rop 362 | Procedural | Procedural only | Order of the Mannheim Local Division in Malikie Innovations v Discord rejecting the defendants' request under R. 361/362 RoP that the claimant be required to appoint a domestic representative for the German national part of EP 3 716 655 pursuant to s. 25(1) German Patent Act. The court held that the UPC regime under Art. 83(1) UPCA does not require compliance with the German domestic representative requirement. |
| 2025-07-29 | UPC_CFI_336/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | Procedural order in infringement action by Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd. against Aiko/Memodo/Libra/VDH Solar/PowerDeal/Coenergia entities (EP 3 065 184 B1, solar panels) on the cost ceiling under Rule 158 RoP. The court held that when a claim is brought against multiple defendants without specifying their respective liability, all defendants must have an equal opportunity to defend against the alleged infringement as a whole, and the cost ceiling should reflect the claim as brought against all defendants collectively. |
| 2025-07-28 | UPC_APP_33295/2025 | Dusseldorf LD | Application Rop 265 | Procedural | Withdrawn | The Düsseldorf Local Division permitted the withdrawal of an application for provisional measures filed by DDP Specialty Electronic Materials US, LLC at the applicant's request and with the defendant's consent. The proceedings were declared closed, the scheduled oral hearing cancelled, and 60% of court fees (EUR 6,600) ordered to be reimbursed. No cost decision was made. |
| 2025-07-28 | ACT_63643/2024 | Lisbon LD | Infringement Action | Procedural | Procedural only | Lisbon Local Division scheduling order in Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v. ASUSTek Computer Inc. (EP 2 819 131 B1). Both parties agreed on appointment of a technically qualified judge and joint hearing of infringement and revocation counterclaim. Oral hearing scheduled for 25 March 2026. The court found no need to rule on alignment of reply deadlines as service of the SoD and CCR was established. |
| 2025-07-28 | UPC_CFI_492/2025 | Munich LD | Generic application | — | Procedural only | The Munich Local Division issued a procedural order granting Roborock Germany GmbH (and co-defendants Beijing Roborock Technology Co., Ltd. and Roborock International B.V.) an extension of time for filing their preliminary objection, Statement of Defence and counterclaim for revocation in the infringement action brought by Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG concerning EP 3 030 943. The extension was agreed by the claimant and was justified by case complexity and the need to align deadlines across all defendants. |
| 2025-07-28 | UPC_CFI_239/2024 | Paris CD | Revocation Action | Revocation merits | Patent amended | The Central Division Paris rejected the revocation action filed by an anonymous claimant against Essetre Holding spa in respect of EP 2 875 923 B1 (a machine for machining walls). The patent was maintained in amended form as submitted in the Principal Request on 8 August 2024. The Court interpreted 'a working surface' as meaning 'one working surface', applying the ordinary meaning in context of the description and drawings. The revocation action was dismissed as the defendant had submitted a patent limitation during proceedings. Costs were apportioned 70% to the claimant and 30% to the defendant. The case value for costs purposes was set at EUR 100,000. |
| 2025-07-27 | ACT_6395/2025 | Paris CD | Application For Costs | Costs | Costs only | Central Division Paris issued a costs decision in Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v. Photon Wave Co., Ltd. following a preliminary objection in a revocation action. The court held: (1) a separate cost decision under R. 150 RoP is admissible after a preliminary objection that closes the proceedings before that division (jurisdiction declined and case transferred to Paris Local Division); (2) value of the revocation action set at EUR 500,000; (3) value of the preliminary objection proceedings set at one-quarter of the revocation action value (EUR 125,000); (4) expert costs for an opinion on Art. 33(4) UPCA interpretation were not reimbursable. Photon Wave bears 80% of Seoul Viosys's recoverable costs for the preliminary objection. |
| 2025-07-25 | ACT_7974/2025 | Brussels LD | Application For Costs | Costs | Costs only | Decision of the Brussels Local Division on costs (Rule 156 RoP) following dismissal of infringement claims in the main proceedings (UPC_CFI_376/2023) brought by a claimant against OrthoApnea S.L. and Vivisol B BV. The Court set out principles for cost recovery including timing of requests for ceiling adjustments, burden of proof for claimed costs, and excluded translation costs and certain security-related costs as non-recoverable. |
| 2025-07-25 | ORD_32794/2025 | Dusseldorf LD | Generic Order | Procedural | Procedural only | Düsseldorf Local Division early procedural order (R. 37.2 RoP) in an infringement action by TRUMPF Laser- und Systemtechnik SE against IPG Laser GmbH & Co. KG concerning EP 2 624 031 B1 (a laser technology patent). The court decided to handle both the infringement action and the revocation counterclaim jointly (Art. 33(3)(a) UPCA), before closure of the written procedure, for reasons of procedural economy and to allow early assignment of a technically qualified judge. |
| 2025-07-25 | UPC_APP_32933/2025 | Mannheim LD | Procedural Order | Procedural | Dismissed | The Mannheim Local Division rejected Centripetal Limited's application for penalty payments against Palo Alto Networks for alleged non-compliance with the saisie (evidence preservation) order of 3 June 2025 (amended 9 July 2025) concerning EP 3 281 580. The Court found that Palo Alto was not obliged to provide access rights to its German branch office's sales-only staff beyond their ordinary duties, and was not required to bring hardware or increase employee access to the encrypted network security system. The premises to be inspected only contained sales and marketing personnel who had no access to the technical network system. Key holding: the inspection order does not compel a defendant to set up, bring or otherwise create access to items not ordinarily available at the inspected premises; it only requires passive toleration of inspection of what is already there. |
| 2025-07-24 | UPC_APP_33424/2025 | Munich LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | The Munich Local Division issued a procedural order partially granting the claimants' request to use private interpreters at the oral hearing, permitting the interpreters to participate from an overflow room rather than in the main courtroom. |
| 2025-07-24 | ORD_33660/2025 | Court of Appeal | Generic Order | Procedural | Withdrawn | The UPC Court of Appeal granted Hanshow Germany GmbH's request to withdraw its appeal against a cost decision in a revocation action concerning EP3883277, and ordered 60% reimbursement of court fees under R.370.9(b)(i) RoP as the withdrawal occurred before closure of the written procedure. Each party bears its own costs. |
| 2025-07-24 | ORD_33617/2025 | Mannheim LD | Generic Order | Procedural | Procedural only | The Local Division Mannheim determined the value in dispute for a patent infringement action with a FRAND counterclaim by Samsung, holding that a FRAND counterclaim is not limited to the value of the infringement action and independently expands the value in dispute, as it goes beyond a mere defence. |
| 2025-07-24 | UPC_APP_32860/2025 | Dusseldorf LD | Application Rop 265 | Procedural | Settled | The Düsseldorf Local Division permitted the withdrawal of both Truma's infringement action and CAN Srl Airxcel Europe's revocation counterclaim, following an out-of-court settlement. The proceedings were declared closed with no cost decision. Each party was reimbursed 60% of its court fees (EUR 6,600 each). The dispute value was set at EUR 500,000 each for the infringement action and revocation counterclaim. |
| 2025-07-24 | UPC_APP_33129/2025 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | Court of Appeal (judge-rapporteur Emmanuel Gougé) granted OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH's application for leave to file a further written pleading under R. 36 RoP in the appeal proceedings concerning a preliminary injunction granted by the Hamburg Local Division (16 June 2025) to STEROS GPA Innovative S.L. for infringement of EP 4 249 647. STEROS had introduced new experimental evidence in its Statement of Response; OTEC was granted two weeks to respond specifically to the experiments (Exhibits GRU 15–17) and related paragraphs of the Response. The Court found the exceptional circumstances required by R. 36 RoP were met given the new evidence. |
| 2025-07-24 | UPC_CoA_614/2025 | Court of Appeal | Petition for review of Registrar's decision | motionName.registrar_review | Dismissed | The President of the Court of Appeal dismissed the petition for review of the Registrar's decision refusing to enter the anonymised applicant on the UPC representative list. The applicant held a certificate from Politecnico di Milano dated 1 March 2024, listed under Rule 12.1(a) EPLC Rules, but filed the registration application on 18 April 2025, after the 3 June 2024 deadline. The applicant argued the deadline applied only to acquisition of the qualification, not to registration, but the President rejected this interpretation. The transitional period was found not to violate equality and proportionality principles. |
| 2025-07-24 | UPC_CoA_521/2025 | Court of Appeal | Petition for review of Registrar's decision | motionName.registrar_review | Dismissed | The President of the Court of Appeal dismissed the petition for review of the Registrar's decision refusing to enter the anonymised applicant on the UPC representative list. The applicant held a certificate from Politecnico di Milano ('Certificato di superamento dell'esame conclusivo del Corso di Proprietà Industriale - Brevetti') dated 9 June 2023. This course was listed in Rule 12.1(a)(xii) EPLC Rules but required filing within one year of UPC Agreement entry into force (by 3 June 2024). The applicant filed on 27 March 2025. A clerical error in the applicant's paralegal department did not constitute sufficient justification for re-establishment of rights. |
| 2025-07-24 | UPC_CoA_347/2025 | Court of Appeal | Petition for review of Registrar's decision | motionName.registrar_review | Dismissed | The President of the Court of Appeal dismissed the petition for review of the Registrar's decision refusing to enter the anonymised applicant (Italian patent attorney) on the UPC representative list. The applicant held a CEIPI diploma obtained 28 January 2022 (before CEIPI accreditation) and filed on 21 February 2025, after the 3 June 2024 deadline under Rule 12.1 EPLC Rules. Health-related circumstances (sick leave from April 2024 to January 2025 following an accident) did not justify re-establishment of rights, as the applicant had not demonstrated inability to file despite assistance being available. The one-year Rule 12.1 transitional period was found not to violate principles of equality and proportionality. |
| 2025-07-24 | UPC_CoA_300/2025 | Court of Appeal | Petition for review of Registrar's decision | motionName.registrar_review | Dismissed | The President of the Court of Appeal dismissed the petition for review of the Registrar's decision refusing to enter the anonymised applicant on the UPC representative list. The applicant held a CEIPI diploma on 'Patent litigation in Europe' obtained on 8 July 2022 (before CEIPI was accredited by the UPC Administrative Committee in November 2023), which qualified under Rule 12.1(a) EPLC Rules but required filing within one year of UPC Agreement entry into force (by 3 June 2024). The applicant filed on 15 November 2024, after the deadline. The President found no 'de facto continuity' between Rule 12 and Rule 1 EPLC Rules that would give the accreditation retroactive effect. |
| 2025-07-24 | UPC_CoA_24/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 265 | — | Settled | Decision of the Court of Appeal dated 24 July 2025 granting withdrawal of all proceedings in the appeal by HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY (HPDC) and the cross-appeal by LAMA FRANCE, following an out-of-court settlement. The underlying Paris Local Division decision of 13 November 2024 had found EP 2 089 230 invalid and EP 1 737 669 infringed by LAMA. Both parties withdrew their appeals and the proceedings were declared closed. A 60% reimbursement of court fees before the Court of Appeal was ordered for both parties. No cost decision was required as both parties agreed. |
| 2025-07-23 | UPC_APP_33456/2025 | Dusseldorf LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | The Düsseldorf Local Division issued a procedural order extending a time period under Rule 9.3 RoP in an infringement action. The order relates to the protection of confidential information contained in the defendants' statement of defence and supporting exhibits regarding peptides used by the defendants and related analyses. |
| 2025-07-23 | UPC_APP_32598/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 265 | Procedural | Settled | Court of Appeal (Panel 2) permitted Visibly Inc.'s withdrawal of its appeal against a Hamburg Local Division security-for-costs order in infringement proceedings concerning EP 3 918 974, following an out-of-court settlement between the parties. Easee companies had become insolvent and their CFI proceedings had been stayed. The Court of Appeal declared the appeal proceedings closed, confirmed no cost decision was needed (both parties waived costs), and ordered 60% reimbursement of appeal fees to Visibly (written proceedings not yet concluded). |
| 2025-07-23 | UPC_CFI_365/2023 | Mannheim LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | Mannheim Local Division issued an enforcement order imposing penalty payments on Kodak entities for non-compliance with the obligation to destroy infringing embodiments under a prior decision. The Court granted Fujifilm's application for imposition of penalties for each week of non-compliance, while rejecting other enforcement requests. Defendants bear the costs. |
| 2025-07-22 | UPC_APP_31180/2025 | Paris LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | The Local Division Paris ruled on TIRU's request for referral of revocation counterclaims to the Central Division Paris and joinder of parallel infringement actions, granting the referral of counterclaims and addressing a possible stay of the infringement proceedings pending the parallel revocation proceedings concerning EP 3 178 578 (waste incineration). |
| 2025-07-22 | UPC_APP_30813/2025 | Paris LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | Procedural order of the Paris Local Division in an infringement action brought by TIRU against VALINEA ENERGIE concerning EP 3 178 578. The order addresses TIRU's request to refer counterclaims for revocation to the Central Division (Paris) already seized of a nullity action, to join infringement actions, and to stay the proceedings. The order rules on procedural consolidation and referral of counterclaims. |
| 2025-07-22 | ACT_31493/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application For Costs | Costs | Withdrawn | The Court of Appeal of the UPC permitted the withdrawal of a cost-assessment application (R. 151 RoP) filed by Philips at the Court of Appeal, which had been submitted in error. The correct forum for cost assessment was the Munich Local Division. No cost decision was required in the context of this withdrawal. |
| 2025-07-22 | CC_65201/2024 | Milan CD | Counterclaim for infringement | Infringement merits | Infringed | The Milan Central Division issued a landmark decision finding infringement of EP 4 201 327 (Insulet Corporation) by EOFLOW Co., Ltd. by default on the counterclaim for infringement, following EOFLOW's failure to defend. The court also decided by default on the revocation action (finding insufficient grounds for revocation) and resolved costs of the preliminary injunction proceedings. The court ordered EOFLOW to cease and desist from infringing activities across all UPC contracting member states, recall products from the market, remove products from channels of commerce, destroy infringing products, and provide full information on the extent of infringement. The court applied a unitary approach to cost caps where two parallel proceedings concerned the same patent and infringement acts. |
| 2025-07-22 | UPC_APP_23201/2025 | Munich LD | Generic application | Evidence | Procedural only | Munich Local Division full panel order (Zigann/Pichlmaier/Schober) in inspection/evidence preservation proceedings (Beweissicherungsverfahren) between Nanoval GmbH & Co. KG (applicant) and ALD Vacuum Technologies GmbH (respondent) concerning EP 3 083 107. The court dismissed ALD's application to revoke the inspection order of 3 February 2025 under R. 198.1 VerfO, finding that Nanoval had filed the main action (on 3 May 2025) within the prescribed time limit. The court clarified (headnotes) that: (1) the court has no discretion over the length of the R. 198.1 period but does have discretion over its start date; (2) the rapporteur may change the start date if the expert report is delivered late; (3) such a procedural order is subject to panel review under R. 333 VerfO within 15 days. |