Cases
Workhorse listing across all UPC cases. Filters apply across tabs.
| Date | Case | Division | Action | Motion | Outcome | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-02-15 | UPC_APP_65673/2024 | Milan CD | Generic application | Costs | Costs only | Procedural order by Milan Central Division (UPC_CFI_380/2024, 15 February 2025) on EOFLOW's application for costs following the rejection of Insulet's preliminary injunction. The court held that costs of PI proceedings must be settled with the final decision on the merits and cannot be parcelled out according to the outcome of individual stages while merits proceedings are ongoing or to follow. |
| 2025-02-12 | UPC_APP_4511/2025 | Dusseldorf LD | Application RoP262A | Procedural | Procedural only | The Düsseldorf Local Division issued a confidentiality order under R.262A RoP protecting specified information in Apple's rejoinder to the reply to the statement of defence in the infringement proceedings between Ona Patents SL and Apple entities. |
| 2025-02-12 | ORD_7284/2025 | Court of Appeal | Generic Order | Procedural | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal addressed representation requirements in a public access-to-file case concerning EP 3 646 825, holding that lawyers and European Patent Attorneys are not exempt from the duty to be represented when they are parties before the UPC, and gave Respondents 14 days to appoint proper representatives. |
| 2025-02-12 | ORD_64355/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic Order | Procedural | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal ruled that lawyers and European Patent Attorneys are not exempt from the mandatory representation requirement under Rule 8.1 RoP when they are themselves parties before the UPC, and that representation is a public policy requirement the court may raise at any time. |
| 2025-02-12 | ORD_7289/2025 | Court of Appeal | Generic Order | Procedural | Procedural only | Court of Appeal order in Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. v. SWAT Medical AB / Respondent 1 concerning representation (R. 8.1 RoP). The appeal arose from a public access application (R. 262.1(b) RoP). The court held: (1) even lawyers and European Patent Attorneys who are themselves parties must be represented before the UPC; (2) representation is a public policy admissibility issue the court may raise at any time of its own motion; (3) Meril Life Sciences' late argument that the access request was inadmissible from the outset due to invalid representation was brought too late under R. 226 and R. 222.2 RoP. |
| 2025-02-11 | UPC_APP_3915/2025 | Munich LD | Application Rop 365 | Procedural | Settled | Infringement action by BSN Medical GmbH against Brightwake Ltd. and Advancis Medical entities for infringement of EP 3 831 350 and EP 3 033 058 concluded by court-confirmed settlement. The parties reached a settlement agreement filed on 07 February 2025. The order confirms the settlement and addresses a confidentiality request. |
| 2025-02-10 | UPC_APP_67764/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Application Rop 265 | Procedural | Withdrawn | The Düsseldorf Local Division accepted the withdrawal of Dolby International AB's infringement action and declared the revocation counterclaim moot, following a settlement between the parties. Each party bears its own costs; partial court fee refunds were ordered. |
| 2025-02-10 | ORD_6847/2025 | Munich LD | Generic Order | motionName.jurisdictional | Dismissed | The Munich Local Division rejected XSYS's preliminary objection to the court's jurisdiction, holding that the UPC has jurisdiction for acts alleged to have occurred before UPCA's entry into force and before opt-out withdrawal, and that jurisdiction and applicable law are separate questions. |
| 2025-02-10 | ACT_59020/2024 | Munich LD | Application For Costs | Costs | Costs only | The Munich Local Division issued a costs assessment decision in favour of SSAB Swedish Steel GmbH and SSAB Europe Oy against Tiroler Rohre GmbH following the withdrawal of a provisional measures application after oral hearing, setting the recoverable costs and addressing hourly rates and time charges for legal representatives. |
| 2025-02-10 | UPC_APP_68380/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Application Rop 265 | Procedural | Settled | Düsseldorf Local Division allowed withdrawal of Dolby International AB's infringement action (EP 3 490 258 B1) and ASUS's counterclaim for revocation, following an out-of-court settlement. The court confirmed both withdrawals and terminated all proceedings, ordered each party to bear its own legal costs (no cross-reimbursement), directed reimbursement of 60% of court fees to claimant (EUR 22,200) and 60% to the counterclaiming defendants (EUR 12,000 total), and set the value in dispute at EUR 3,500,000 for both the infringement action and the counterclaim. |
| 2025-02-10 | UPC_APP_3474/2025 | Helsinki LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | Helsinki Local Division granted AIM Sport Development AG's application under Rule 263 RoP for leave to amend its infringement case (replacing AIM Sport Vision AG as claimant) and to add TGI Sport Virtual UK Limited as a new defendant under Rule 305 RoP. The court allowed the amendment noting the risk of irreconcilable decisions from different courts if not joined. The defendants (Supponor companies) were ordered to file their statement of defence within three months. Leave to appeal was granted. |
| 2025-02-10 | UPC_CFI_640/2024 | Munich LD | Application For Costs | — | Costs only | Decision of the Munich Local Division on a costs assessment (Kostenfestsetzung) following withdrawal of an application for provisional measures by SSAB Europe Oy and SSAB Swedish Steel GmbH against Tiroler Rohre GmbH after the oral hearing. The first-instance court had previously ordered Tiroler Rohre (the unsuccessful PI applicant) to bear costs including preparation of the protective brief. The costs decision addressed the reasonableness of hours billed by claimants' legal representatives, making deductions for excessive time entries across multiple tasks (protective brief, main PI proceedings, e-mail correspondence). Allowable costs were calculated for one attorney-at-law, one patent attorney, and a second patent attorney. |
| 2025-02-08 | UPC_APP_1202/2025 | Munich LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | Procedural order of the Munich Local Division on an application by Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson and Ericsson GmbH under Rule 262A RoP for confidentiality protection of license negotiation information in infringement proceedings by Motorola Mobility LLC concerning EP 3 780 758. The order addresses the scope of access to FRAND negotiation information, in particular whether Lenovo entities should be included in the access circle. |
| 2025-02-07 | UPC_APP_5885/2025 | Milan LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | The Milan Local Division granted Dainese S.p.A.'s application under R. 9 RoP to extend the deadline for filing its defence to counterclaims for revocation and reply to statements of defence, in light of a concurrent EPO oral hearing on 13 February 2025 for the parallel opposition proceedings, and invited the parties to submit a joint request for alignment of future procedural deadlines. |
| 2025-02-05 | UPC_APP_3212/2025 | Munich LD | Generic application | motionName.jurisdictional | Procedural only | The Munich Local Division allowed Ericsson's preliminary objection against Motorola Mobility LLC's counterclaim for revocation of EP 3 780 758, rejecting the counterclaim as inadmissible because the same action between the same parties on the same patent had already been brought before the same division, which is prohibited under Art. 33(2) UPCA by analogy. |
| 2025-02-05 | UPC_APP_368/2025 | Munich LD | Generic application | motionName.jurisdictional | Procedural only | The Munich Local Division allowed a preliminary objection raised by Ericsson against Motorola's counterclaim for revocation, holding that a preliminary objection can be raised against a counterclaim for revocation and that Art. 33(2) UPCA applies when the same parties bring the same action twice before the same division. |
| 2025-02-05 | UPC_APP_4027/2025 | Paris LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | Paris Local Division order (judge-rapporteur Lignières) on Hurom Co.'s application for further exchanges of written pleadings (R. 36 RoP) in infringement proceedings against NUC Electronics entities and Warmcook concerning EP 3 155 936. The court addresses Hurom's request that sections of its rejoinder be declared admissible, or alternatively that further pleadings be permitted. The order likely dismisses the application, deferring any inadmissibility issues to the merits, given the defendants' last-word principle in infringement proceedings. No substantive ruling. |
| 2025-02-03 | UPC_APP_67470/2024 | Mannheim LD | Application Rop 265 | Procedural | Settled | The Mannheim Local Division allowed the withdrawal of both the infringement action and the revocation counterclaim by Panasonic and OPPO respectively following a settlement by the parties after the main judgment was issued; proceedings were declared closed with each party bearing its own costs. |
| 2025-02-03 | UPC_APP_1872/2025 | Dusseldorf LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | The Local Division Düsseldorf issued a confidentiality order under R.262A RoP, clarifying that only the party whose access is to be restricted can identify which of its persons need access, and that the opposing party claiming confidentiality must raise specific objections after that proposal. |
| 2025-02-03 | UPC_APP_67924/2024 | Mannheim LD | Application Rop 265 | Procedural | Settled | Mannheim Local Division order confirming the withdrawal by consent of Panasonic Holdings Corporation's infringement action and the joint counterclaim for revocation filed by Xiaomi group entities and Odiporo GmbH / Shamrock Mobile GmbH concerning multiple patents (standard-essential patents in the mobile technology field), following an out-of-court settlement between the parties. The proceedings were declared closed in their entirety. Each party bears its own costs. The court also addressed court fee reimbursement: Panasonic must pay an additional EUR 13,400 in court fees (due to increased case value of EUR 8,000,000); defendants receive 20% reimbursement of their counterclaim fees (EUR 4,000). The case value was set at EUR 8,000,000. |
| 2025-02-03 | UPC_APP_68658/2024 | Milan CD | Application RoP262.1 (b) | Procedural | Dismissed | Application 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. |
| 2025-02-03 | UPC_CFI_698/2024 | Milan CD | Application RoP262.1 (b) | Procedural | Dismissed | Application 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. |
| 2025-01-30 | UPC_APP_4703/2025 | Munich LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | Procedural order of the Munich Local Division (presiding judge Zigann) granting Disney defendants' request to set a uniform deadline of 11 March 2025 for filing the Statement of Defence with Counterclaim for Revocation for all three Disney defendants in Adeia Guides Inc.'s infringement action concerning EP 2 793 430. The request was agreed between the parties, with Defendants accepting virtual service of the Statement of Claim, and was justified by the substantial workload from parallel proceedings and upcoming business travel. |
| 2025-01-30 | UPC_APP_3424/2025 | Mannheim LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | Procedural order by Mannheim Local Division in FUJIFILM v Kodak (EP 3 511 174) granting FUJIFILM's request for simultaneous interpretation from English into Japanese at the oral hearing under R. 109.1 RoP, in order to enable the claimant's Japanese-speaking representatives to effectively participate in the proceedings and exercise their procedural rights. |
| 2025-01-29 | UPC_APP_68468/2024 | The Hague LD | Application Rop 265 | Procedural | Withdrawn | Order of The Hague Local Division permitting withdrawal of the infringement action by Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. against Dexcom Inc. and Dexcom International Limited, and withdrawal of the counterclaims for revocation by both defendants. All parties mutually consented. The Court also allowed claimant's request for 20% reimbursement of court fees under Rule 370.9 RoP. |
| 2025-01-29 | UPC_APP_68465/2024 | The Hague LD | Application Rop 265 | Procedural | Withdrawn | Order from the Hague Local Division (UPC_CFI_424/2023) declaring infringement and revocation counterclaim proceedings closed following withdrawal of all claims by all parties. Both parties jointly requested withdrawal; the court found no final decision existed and no party had a legitimate interest in a court ruling. No cost decision was requested. |
| 2025-01-29 | UPC_APP_68474/2024 | The Hague LD | Generic application | Procedural | Withdrawn | The Hague Local Division order allowing withdrawal of all claims and counterclaims in infringement proceedings between Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. and Dexcom Inc. concerning EP 4 070 727. All parties requested withdrawal; the court allowed the withdrawals and ordered reimbursement of 20% of court fees to the defendant/counterclaimant Dexcom per R. 370.9. The proceedings are closed. |
| 2025-01-27 | ORD_4350/2025 | Munich LD | Generic Order | Procedural | Procedural only | Munich Local Division (27 January 2025) procedural order deciding that the panel will hear the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation together, and requesting assignment of a technically qualified judge. |
| 2025-01-27 | UPC_APP_2740/2025 | Unknown | — | Costs | Costs only | Procedural order by the Munich Local Division on an application for reimbursement of court fees (Rule 370.9(b)(iii) RoP) following withdrawal of an application for provisional measures by Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited. The court applied Rule 370.9(b)(iii) by analogy to provisional measures proceedings (not directly applicable as written for main actions) and ordered reimbursement of 20% of court fees, as the withdrawal occurred before completion of oral proceedings. |
| 2025-01-24 | ORD_3876/2025 | Paris LD | Generic Order | motionName.jurisdictional | Dismissed | The Paris Local Division declared the revocation action brought by Photon Wave Co. Ltd. against Seoul Viosys Co. Ltd. (EP 3 404 726) inadmissible, holding that a standalone revocation action by a third-party intervener in parallel infringement proceedings was not permitted under Articles 32 and 33 UPCA where the intervener had failed to comply with mandatory time limits for filing a counterclaim for revocation. |
| 2025-01-24 | UPC_APP_68655/2024 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 265 | Procedural | Withdrawn | The Court of Appeal allowed DexCom's withdrawal of its infringement action and Abbott's withdrawal of the counterclaims for revocation, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 60% of DexCom's court fees; as a result the first instance decision revoking DexCom's patent became ineffective. |
| 2025-01-24 | UPC_APP_66588/2024 | Munich LD | Amend Document | Procedural | Procedural only | The Munich Local Division issued a procedural order dealing with Samsung's application challenging Headwater Research's standing and patent ownership, and Headwater's applications to revoke earlier orders and amend its pleadings. |
| 2025-01-24 | UPC_APP_63772/2024 | Milan LD | Application Rop 265 | Procedural | Procedural only | The Milan Local Division issued a procedural order on Dainese's application under Rule 262A RoP for confidential protection of information contained in its partial withdrawal application, granting limited access to the confidential exhibit. |
| 2025-01-24 | UPC_APP_2192/2025 | Munich LD | Application Rop 265 | Procedural | Withdrawn | Decision by Munich Local Division (UPC_CFI_487/2023, 24 January 2025) permitting withdrawal of TCL defendants' counterclaims for revocation and FRAND-licence offer. 60% of court fees were reimbursed for the revocation counterclaim. The court held that court fees are payable for FRAND-licence offer counterclaims by analogy under R. 370 RoP, and that such fees had been properly paid so no full refund was warranted. |
| 2025-01-24 | UPC_APP_63878/2024 | Milan LD | Application RoP262A | Procedural | Procedural only | Procedural order from the Milan Local Division (UPC_CFI_472/2024) on Dainese's application for protection of confidential information under R. 262A RoP relating to a partial withdrawal submission. The Court ordered creation of a confidential club including at least one natural person from each party and their legal representatives, balancing confidentiality against the right to an effective defence. Access by Alpinestars/Motocard to unredacted documents was restricted to designated individuals. |
| 2025-01-24 | UPC_APP_1178/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 265 | Procedural | Withdrawn | Court of Appeal Panel 2 order permitting DexCom's withdrawal of its infringement appeal and declaring the proceedings closed. Background: the Paris Local Division had revoked EP 3 831 282 (continuous glucose monitoring) and dismissed all DexCom infringement claims; DexCom appealed but then applied to withdraw the action including the appeal. The withdrawal was permitted, proceedings closed, and 60% of appeal court fees refunded to DexCom. No costs decision required. |
| 2025-01-24 | ORD_3184/2025 | Court of Appeal | Generic Order | Procedural | Withdrawn | Court of Appeal order allowing withdrawal of the infringement appeal and counterclaim for revocation filed by DexCom against Abbott companies, pursuant to R. 265 RoP. The withdrawal was allowed, proceedings declared closed, and the impugned first-instance decision became ineffective. Court held that withdrawal may be filed in appeal proceedings, that withdrawal of a revocation counterclaim renders amendment requests ineffective, and that closure of proceedings renders the impugned decision ineffective. |
| 2025-01-24 | UPC_APP_67889/2024 | Paris CD | Application RoP262.1 (b) | Procedural | Procedural only | The Paris Central Division (sitting as CFI) dismissed the Institute of Professional Representatives before the EPO (EPI)'s application for public access to written pleadings and evidence in the Suinno v Microsoft infringement proceedings (UPC_CFI_164/2024, EP 2 671 173). The Court held that the interest in protecting the integrity and independence of proceedings (particularly given the EPI's professional interest in the status of in-house European Patent Attorneys at the UPC) outweighed the access interest, as the matter raised a purely legal and general issue that did not require access to the specific case file. |
| 2025-01-23 | UPC_APP_2875/2025 | Munich LD | Generic application | Costs | Procedural only | The Munich Local Division dismissed Meril GmbH and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd.'s application to partially stay cost-assessment proceedings pending the outcome of a Court of Appeal case, finding that R. 295(d) RoP allows only a full stay at the joint request of both parties and does not authorise a partial stay. |
| 2025-01-23 | UPC_APP_2876/2025 | Munich LD | Generic application | Costs | Procedural only | The Munich Local Division ordered a stay of cost decision proceedings (App_66577/2024) and confidentiality protection proceedings (App_66581/2024) pending a decision by the Court of Appeal in APL_1926/2025, at the joint request of the parties. The stay did not extend to the costs of representation element of the cost application. |
| 2025-01-23 | UPC_APP_3108/2025 | Munich LD | Generic application | Costs | Procedural only | Munich Local Division procedural order (judge-rapporteur Dr. Zigann) granting Meril's application to extend the deadline for commenting on Edwards Lifesciences Corporation's costs application (App_66577/2024) until after the judge-rapporteur decides on Edwards's confidentiality application (App_66581/2024). The extension was granted under R. 9.3(a) RoP given the exceptional circumstances: Meril cannot properly assess the redacted cost application until confidentiality is resolved. This follows the final merits decision of 15 November 2024 in the main Edwards v. Meril infringement case (UPC_CFI_15/2023). |
| 2025-01-23 | ORD_3866/2025 | Munich LD | Generic Order | Costs | Procedural only | Munich Local Division (Judge-rapporteur Dr. Zigann) issued a procedural order in the costs determination proceedings of Edwards Lifesciences v Meril (UPC_CFI_815/2024, infringement action previously resolved). The order invited Edwards to comment within 10 days on the proposed confidentiality arrangement (Rule 262A/262.2 RoP) for the costs application, indicating that Meril would likely be given unlimited access to the costs documents under Rule 262.2 RoP (protection against third parties only). Various stay applications were addressed in separate orders. |
| 2025-01-22 | ORD_3577/2025 | Munich LD | Generic Order | Procedural | Procedural only | The Munich Local Division issued a case-management order following a preliminary interim conference in Sanofi's infringement actions (four separate cases) against multiple generic-drug defendants (Accord, STADA, Dr. Reddy's, Zentiva), setting the value of infringement claims and counterclaims, directing Sanofi to remedy formal deficiencies in its pleadings, and waiving all other outstanding deadlines pending clarification. |
| 2025-01-22 | ACT_1474/2025 | The Hague LD | Application for preserving evidence pursuant to RoP192 | Evidence | Procedural only | The Hague Local Division granted Mammoet Holding B.V.'s application for preserving evidence against PTS Machinery B.V., ordering an expert inspection of the defendant's premises without prior hearing to gather evidence of alleged infringement of EP 4 171 996. Security of EUR 20,000 was required. |
| 2025-01-21 | UPC_APP_3072/2025 | Dusseldorf LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | The Düsseldorf Local Division issued a procedural order in the Maxeon Solar v. Aiko/PowerDeal infringement action, addressing procedural matters related to the parallel cases concerning EP 3 065 184 B1 and further defendants in the solar panel technology dispute. |
| 2025-01-21 | UPC_APP_64021/2024 | Munich LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | The Local Division Munich held that where formal service of the provisional measures application under R.274 RoP was impossible, a subsequent decision by default need not be re-attempted under R.274 before proceeding to an order under R.275.2 RoP, in order to preserve the right to effective judicial protection. |
| 2025-01-21 | UPC_APP_64978/2024 | Munich LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | Munich Local Division order on service of a decision by default on a Chinese defendant (Guangzhou Aiyun Yanwu Technology) in provisional measures proceedings brought by air up group GmbH. Service under R. 274 RoP via the Hague Service Convention through Chinese authorities had failed after more than six months (Chinese authority seriously and definitively refusing to process the service). The court held that (1) service rules must be interpreted in accordance with effective legal protection principles, so it must always be possible to establish good service under R. 275.2 RoP; (2) where R. 274 service has failed for the original application, there is no need to attempt R. 274 service again for the subsequent default decision before ordering alternative service under R. 275.2 RoP. |
| 2025-01-21 | UPC_APP_33375/2024 | Nordic-Baltic RD | Application RoP262.1 (b) | Procedural | Dismissed | Nordic-Baltic Regional Division judge-rapporteur closed proceedings following withdrawal of seven public access applications (R. 262.1(b) RoP) by the applicant (an individual acting also on behalf of SWAT Medical AB) in Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v. Meril et al. proceedings. Meril Life Sciences PVT Limited's request for cost reimbursement (EUR 17,168.70) was rejected: Art. 69 UPCA does not apply to proceedings on public access requests because (i) the Enforcement Directive's cost principle does not extend to such requests, (ii) no ceiling for recoverable costs has been set for access proceedings, and (iii) parties to the main proceedings are merely consulted, not 'parties' in the access sub-proceedings. |
| 2025-01-20 | UPC_APP_68693/2024 | Nordic-Baltic RD | Application Rop 265 | Procedural | Withdrawn | The Nordic-Baltic Regional Division declared the proceedings closed following the mutual withdrawal of Abbott Diabetes Care's infringement action and Dexcom's counterclaim for revocation (both relating to EP 3 977 921). Both parties consented to withdrawal with no cost decision requested or made. |
| 2025-01-20 | UPC_APP_283/2025 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | Costs | Dismissed | Court of Appeal dismissed SharkNinja's application for suspension of cost-determination proceedings (R. 295(d) RoP) as inadmissible, because the one-month period for filing a cost-determination application (R. 151 RoP) starts from service of the merits decision, not from service of the preliminary injunction order. Since no merits decision had yet been issued, the application was premature. The court further noted that R. 150/151 RoP apply by analogy where no main proceedings are initiated after unsuccessful provisional measures. |