Cases
Workhorse listing across all UPC cases. Filters apply across tabs.
| Date | Case | Division | Action | Motion | Outcome | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-03-11 | UPC_CoA_335/2023 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | PI denied | Court of Appeal rectification order correcting a slip in Headnote 2 of the 26 February 2024 order. The corrected headnote confirms that the patent claim is the decisive basis (not merely a starting point) for determining the scope of protection under Art. 69 EPC; the provisional measures application against NanoString was ultimately denied by the CoA as the patent was more likely than not invalid. |
| 2024-03-11 | UPC_CoA_335/2023 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | PI denied | Court of Appeal order (26 February 2024, German language version) denying provisional measures against NanoString. The CoA held that the patent was more likely than not invalid, laid down principles on patent claim interpretation under Art. 69 EPC, burden of proof in provisional measure proceedings, and formal requirements under R. 206 RoP. |
| 2024-03-11 | UPC_CoA_335/2023 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | PI denied | German-language rectification order (11 March 2024) correcting a slip in Headnote 2 of the CoA's 26 February 2024 provisional measures order, with corrected formulation of the patent claim interpretation principles under Art. 69 EPC. |
| 2024-03-04 | UPC_CFI_239/2023 | The Hague LD | Infringement Action | Procedural | Procedural only | The Hague Local Division granted Plant-e's application for a confidentiality order under R.262A RoP protecting financial information submitted with their reply to a R.158 application, with access limited to counsel only with the consent of the parties. |
| 2024-03-04 | UPC_CFI_239/2023 | The Hague LD | Application RoP262A | Procedural | Procedural only | The Hague Local Division granted Plant-e's application for a confidentiality order under R.262A RoP protecting financial information submitted with their reply to a R.158 application, with access limited to counsel only with the consent of the parties. |
| 2024-03-01 | UPC_APP_9978/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Application for provisional measures | Procedural | Procedural only | The Düsseldorf Local Division issued a procedural order in the 10x Genomics v. Curio Bioscience provisional measures proceedings, rejecting 10x Genomics' request for court-ordered simultaneous interpretation at the oral hearing, on grounds that the applicant had itself chosen German as the language of proceedings and had earlier opposed a language change requested by the respondent. |
| 2024-02-27 | UPC_CFI_440/2023 | Paris LD | Generic Order | motionName.jurisdictional | Procedural only | The Paris Local Division refused the defendant Laser Components SAS's request to change the language of proceedings from French to English (the language in which the patent was granted) in Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd v Laser Components SAS. The Court applied R. 322 RoP and Art. 49.4 UPCA, finding that while the plaintiff is Korean and chose French, the defendant is a French company based in France, and neither the representative's nationality nor a forced intervenor's nationality constitutes sufficient grounds of convenience or equity to justify a language change. The request was therefore rejected. |
| 2024-02-26 | UPC_APP_5164/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Application for provisional measures | Procedural | Procedural only | The President of the UPC Court of First Instance ruled on a language-of-proceedings application in the 10x Genomics v Curio Bioscience provisional measures case, deciding whether English (the patent language) or German (the local division language) should govern proceedings. |
| 2024-02-26 | UPC_APP_5164/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Application for provisional measures | Procedural | Procedural only | The President of the UPC Court of First Instance ruled on a language-of-proceedings application in the 10x Genomics v Curio Bioscience provisional measures case, deciding whether English (the patent language) or German (the local division language) should govern proceedings. |
| 2024-02-24 | UPC_CFI_1/2023 | Munich CD | Revocation Action | Procedural | Procedural only | The Munich Central Division issued a procedural order combining two related revocation actions (Sanofi v Amgen and Regeneron v Amgen) into a single proceeding, admitted additional documents into evidence, rejected a request for an interim conference, and set the value of each action at EUR 100 million. |
| 2024-02-23 | UPC_APP_8500/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Application for provisional measures | Procedural | Procedural only | Published headnotes and keywords document for the 23 February 2024 Düsseldorf Local Division order in Curio Bioscience v. 10x Genomics, setting out the legal principles on trade secret protection under Rule 262A RoP in provisional measures proceedings, including preliminary access restrictions and the right to be heard before a final confidentiality order. |
| 2024-02-23 | UPC_APP_8500/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Application for provisional measures | Procedural | Procedural only | The Düsseldorf Local Division issued a confidentiality protection order under Rule 262A RoP in Curio Bioscience v. 10x Genomics, establishing preliminary access restrictions to allegedly confidential documents and setting out the proportionate circle of persons entitled to access (four legal representatives, two patent attorneys, three client representatives, expandable by two paralegals if needed). |
| 2024-02-23 | UPC_APP_9671/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Application for provisional measures | Procedural | Procedural only | The Düsseldorf Local Division rejected the applicant's (10x Genomics) request to move the deadline for responding to the opposition, holding that the deadline runs from the issuance of the prior procedural order and cannot be shifted to the conclusion of the confidentiality proceedings. |
| 2024-02-23 | UPC_APP_9671/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Application for provisional measures | Procedural | Procedural only | The Düsseldorf Local Division rejected the applicant's (10x Genomics) request to move the deadline for responding to the opposition, holding that the deadline runs from the issuance of the prior procedural order and cannot be shifted to the conclusion of the confidentiality proceedings. |
| 2024-02-22 | UPC_APP_597898/2023 | Mannheim LD | Infringement Action | Procedural | Procedural only | The Mannheim Local Division issued a procedural order in MED-EL v. Advanced Bionics, denying the defendants' application to refer the infringement proceedings to the Central Division and deferring the question of a stay of infringement proceedings pending parallel Central Division revocation proceedings to a later stage, after the full written procedure is complete. |
| 2024-02-22 | UPC_APP_7580/2024 | Court of Appeal | Application for an Order for expedition of an appeal (RoP225(e)) | motionName.appeal_decision | Dismissed | The UPC Court of Appeal dismissed Netgear's request to expedite the appeal and shorten the respondent's time period for filing a statement of response, finding the request too unspecified and insufficiently substantiated given the interests of Huawei and principles of due process in proceedings challenging a separation order. |
| 2024-02-22 | UPC_APP_7580/2024 | Court of Appeal | Application for an Order for expedition of an appeal (RoP225(e)) | motionName.appeal_decision | Dismissed | Order of the Court of Appeal (Panel 2) rejecting Netgear's application under R. 225(e) / R. 9.3(b) RoP to accelerate the appeal proceedings (against an order bifurcating the case under R. 302.1 RoP in Huawei v Netgear concerning EP 3 678 321). The request was filed on the last day of the time limits for the appeal response, and the court refused to shorten the respondent's (Huawei's) deadline to reply, weighing Huawei's interest in a fair hearing against the risk that the first-instance defence would need to be filed before the appeal outcome. |
| 2024-02-21 | UPC_APP_6926/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Infringement Action | Procedural | Procedural only | The Düsseldorf Local Division issued a procedural order in FUJIFILM v. Kodak GmbH, granting the defendants a retrospective extension of the deadline to file their counterclaim for revocation in the dedicated CMS workflow, on the conditions that a first filing attempt had been made before the deadline and the corrected upload was made without culpable delay. |
| 2024-02-21 | UPC_APP_6926/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Infringement Action | Procedural | Procedural only | Duplicate version of the 21 February 2024 Düsseldorf Local Division procedural order in FUJIFILM v. Kodak, granting a retrospective extension of the CMS workflow deadline for filing the counterclaim for revocation. |
| 2024-02-19 | UPC_APP_6074/2024 | Munich LD | Infringement Action | Procedural | Procedural only | The Munich Local Division issued a post-hearing order in Huawei v. Netgear following a separate hearing under Rule 334(d) RoP on 19 February 2024, characterising that hearing as a separate hearing and setting out procedural steps regarding the recording and a pending Rule 336 RoP interim decision application. |
| 2024-02-15 | UPC_CoA_2/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic Order | Costs | Procedural only | Procedural order from the Court of Appeal (UPC_CoA_2/2024) on the appeal fee issue in provisional measures proceedings. The appeal concerned a Munich Local Division order declaring the PI application moot after Meril gave an undertaking and cease and desist declaration. The order addressed cost allocation and whether the appeal fee was properly calculated. |
| 2024-02-15 | UPC_CoA_2/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic Order | Costs | Costs only | Procedural order of the Court of Appeal addressing the appeal fee in an appeal by Meril GmbH and Meril Life Sciences against a Munich Local Division order in provisional measures proceedings brought by Edwards Lifesciences Corporation regarding EP 3 763 331 (crimping device for heart valve prostheses). After Meril submitted a cease-and-desist undertaking, Edwards accepted it and the case was resolved without a ruling. The first-instance court ordered Meril to bear costs up to EUR 200,000 and set the action value at EUR 1,500,000. Meril appealed. The Court of Appeal order concerned procedural aspects of the appeal fee payment. |
| 2024-02-15 | UPC_CFI_239/2023 | The Hague LD | Generic Order | Procedural | Procedural only | The Hague Local Division decided to hear both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation jointly (Art. 33(3)(a) UPCA), as both parties agreed and joint hearing was considered expedient for uniform interpretation. |
| 2024-02-14 | UPC_CFI_463/2023 | Dusseldorf LD | Application for provisional measures | Procedural | Procedural only | The Düsseldorf Local Division issued a procedural order in 10x Genomics v. Curio Bioscience establishing a structured confidentiality protection procedure under Rule 262A RoP, clarifying the CMS workflow for trade secret protection and setting out the process for granting preliminary access restrictions before a final confidentiality order is made. |
| 2024-02-14 | UPC_CFI_210/2023 | Mannheim LD | Infringement Action | Procedural | Procedural only | The Mannheim Local Division established a confidentiality regime in the Panasonic v. OPPO infringement proceedings for the production of licence agreements and confidential commercial information under Rules 190/191, 262, and 262A RoP, setting out a structured multi-step process to protect trade secrets while enabling their use in the proceedings. |
| 2024-02-14 | UPC_CFI_210/2023 | Mannheim LD | Infringement Action | Procedural | Procedural only | German-language version of the Mannheim Local Division order establishing a confidentiality regime (Geheimnisschutzregime) in Panasonic v. OPPO, covering the same rules for the protection of licence agreement contents as trade secrets under Rules 190/191, 262, and 262A RoP. |
| 2024-02-12 | UPC_CFI_114/2024 | Munich LD | Infringement Action | Procedural | Procedural only | The Munich Local Division issued a procedural order in Heraeus v Vibrantz, upholding the claimant's amendment of infringement claims to include indirect infringement of a process claim without requiring court leave, granting other amendments to extend claims to Romania, and allowing substitution of parties in the revocation counterclaim. |
| 2024-02-12 | UPC_CFI_425/2023 | Paris LD | Generic Order | Procedural | Procedural only | The Paris Local Division issued a procedural order extending and aligning time limits for multiple defendants to file their statements of defence in the infringement action brought by Abbott Diabetes Care, following an oral agreement at a case management meeting on a reasonable date. |
| 2024-02-12 | UPC_CFI_395/2023 | Paris LD | Generic Order | Procedural | Procedural only | Procedural order from the Paris Local Division granting an extension and alignment of deadlines for filing the Statement of Defence in an infringement action by DexCom against 14 Abbott group defendants. The parties had orally agreed on a filing date at a case management meeting, which the Judge-Rapporteur considered reasonable. The order also confirmed service completion details for each defendant. |
| 2024-02-09 | UPC_CFI_424/2023 | The Hague LD | Infringement Action | Procedural | Procedural only | The Hague Local Division issued a procedural order in Abbott v. Dexcom, granting Abbott's request to align the statement of defence deadlines for both Dexcom defendants so that both run from the later service date on Dexcom International Limited (20 December 2023), ensuring synchronised pleading schedules. |
| 2024-02-09 | UPC_CFI_9/2023 | Munich LD | Infringement Action | Procedural | Procedural only | The Munich Local Division issued an order under Rule 322 RoP in the Huawei v. Netgear infringement proceedings, deciding that, although German remains the language of proceedings, the oral hearing shall be conducted in English, relying on Rules 1.1 and 14.2(c) RoP to ensure an efficient and fair hearing given the international nature of the case and the parties' agreement. |
| 2024-02-08 | UPC_CoA_404/2023 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal (Second Panel) ruled that a member of the public who requests access to the register under R. 262.1(b) RoP must be represented before the UPC, as such a person is in an adversarial situation that requires representation. The unrepresented respondent's Statement of Response was disregarded, and the respondent was given time to remedy the lack of representation. |
| 2024-02-02 | UPC_CFI_14/2023 | Munich LD | Infringement Action | Procedural | Procedural only | The Munich Local Division issued an order pursuant to Art. 33(3)(b) UPCA, granting all parties' unanimous request to refer the counterclaim for revocation to the Central Division, while deciding to proceed with the infringement proceedings at the Local Division and reserving the possibility to stay the infringement action pending the revocation outcome. |
| 2024-01-31 | UPC_CFI_252/2024 | Munich CD | Revocation Action | Procedural | Procedural only | The Munich Central Division issued orders following the interim conference in the NanoString v. Harvard revocation action, admitting document D46 as prior art, confirming the oral hearing for 17 April 2024, and setting the value of proceedings at EUR 7.5 million. |
| 2024-01-31 | ACT_551180/2023 | Munich CD | Revocation Action | Procedural | Procedural only | The Munich Central Division judge-rapporteur issued an interim conference order (R. 103/105.5 RoP) in the revocation action by NanoString Technologies Europe against Harvard concerning EP 2 794 928. The order recorded directions from the interim conference, including admission of document D46 with a response period for the defendant, and setting the value of proceedings at EUR 7,500,000. |
| 2024-01-31 | ACT_551180/2023 | Munich CD | Revocation Action | Procedural | Procedural only | Procedural order from Munich Central Division (judge-rapporteur András Kupecz) following the interim conference in a revocation action brought by NanoString Technologies Europe Limited against President and Fellows of Harvard College concerning EP 2 794 928. The order addresses admissibility of document D46 (filed as prior art in the reply): the defendant withdrew its objection, D46 was admitted into proceedings, and the defendant was given six weeks to respond in writing. Further, the judge-rapporteur indicated the case value for cost purposes. No substantive ruling. |
| 2024-01-30 | UPC_CFI_230/2023 | Paris LD | Infringement Action | Procedural | Procedural only | The Paris Local Division panel, on review under Rule 333 RoP, partially upheld Abbott's application by increasing the upper limit of the penalty for breach of the confidentiality club from EUR 50,000 to EUR 250,000, to achieve consistency with a parallel confidentiality order issued by the Munich Local Division in related proceedings. |
| 2024-01-29 | UPC_CFI_463/2023 | Dusseldorf LD | Application for provisional measures | Procedural | Procedural only | The Düsseldorf Local Division issued a procedural order in the 10x Genomics v. Curio Bioscience provisional measures proceedings, deciding ex officio to appoint a technically qualified judge given the technical complexity of the patent (spatial transcriptomics), relying on Art. 8(5) UPCA even in the absence of an express provision for interim proceedings. |
| 2024-01-25 | UPC_CFI_452/2023 | Dusseldorf LD | Application for provisional measures | Procedural | Procedural only | The Düsseldorf Local Division panel issued a procedural order in the Ortovox v. Mammut provisional measures case, setting out the criteria for reviewing a unilateral (ex parte) provisional measures order under Rule 212.3 / 197.3-4 RoP, and noting that the patent's validity must be sufficiently established before granting provisional measures. |
| 2024-01-24 | UPC_CFI_452/2023 | Dusseldorf LD | Application for provisional measures | Procedural | Procedural only | The Düsseldorf Local Division issued a procedural order in the Ortovox v. Mammut provisional measures proceedings, directing the respondents (Mammut) to re-upload their inspection requests in the dedicated CMS workflow for Rule 212.3 RoP applications within a set deadline. |
| 2024-01-24 | UPC_CFI_230/2023 | Paris LD | Infringement Action | Procedural | Procedural only | The Paris Local Division full panel issued a procedural order in the Dexcom v. Abbott infringement case, rejecting Abbott's request for leave to appeal the judge-rapporteur's confidentiality order of 19 December 2023, finding it was a case management order subject to Rule 333 RoP review rather than a directly appealable order. |
| 2024-01-24 | UPC_CFI_1/2023 | Munich CD | Revocation Action | Procedural | Procedural only | The Munich Central Division judge-rapporteur issued a procedural order in the Sanofi v. Amgen revocation action, declining Sanofi's request to admit supplementary expert declarations filed in response to new points raised in Amgen's rejoinder, noting that the proper course was to raise the matter at the upcoming interim conference. |
| 2024-01-23 | UPC_CFI_181/2023 | Munich LD | Infringement Action | Procedural | Procedural only | The Munich Local Division issued a post-interim-conference order in KraussMaffei v. TROESTER, confirming the oral hearing date of 16 April 2024, setting final pleading deadlines, fixing the value of the proceedings at EUR 2 million, and inviting parties to submit preliminary cost estimates. |
| 2024-01-22 | UPC_CFI_308/2023 | Paris CD | Revocation Action | Procedural | Procedural only | The Paris Central Division issued a procedural order in the NJOY v. VMR Products revocation action, ruling on the date of service of VMR's defence to revocation, determining that service was effected on 13 December 2023 when the Registry notified the corrected defence to NJOY. |
| 2024-01-18 | UPC_APP_595631/2023 | Munich LD | Infringement Action | Procedural | Procedural only | The Munich Local Division panel confirmed (upon review under Rule 333 RoP) the judge-rapporteur's order permitting Huawei to extend its infringement claim to a second patent (EP3678321) following a limitation procedure, and ruled that the defendants were entitled to the same response deadlines as if the additional patent had been asserted in a separate action. |
| 2024-01-17 | UPC_CFI_239/2023 | The Hague LD | Procedural Order | Procedural | Procedural only | The Hague Local Division issued a procedural order clarifying the deadline for Plant-e to file its defence to the counterclaim for revocation and setting provisional dates for the interim conference and oral hearing, while also inviting parties to comment on the application of Art. 33(3) UPCA regarding bifurcation. |
| 2024-01-16 | UPC_CFI_373/2023 | Dusseldorf LD | Generic application | motionName.jurisdictional | Procedural only | The President of the Court of First Instance granted Aarke AB's application to change the language of the Düsseldorf infringement proceedings from German to English (the language in which EP1793917 was granted), finding a significant imbalance between the parties given Aarke's status as a smaller Swedish company and considerations of fair access to justice. |
| 2024-01-11 | UPC_CoA_486/2023 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 333 | Procedural | Procedural only | Court of Appeal standing judge (11 January 2024) allowed Netgear's request for discretionary review, permitting Netgear to appeal the CFI judge-rapporteur's order of 11 December 2023, holding that the JR could not himself decide on the admissibility of a R. 333 review application of his own decision. The case was referred to the President of the CoA for assignment to a panel. |
| 2024-01-11 | UPC_CoA_486/2023 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 333 | Procedural | Procedural only | German-language version of the same CoA standing judge order of 11 January 2024 granting Netgear's request for discretionary review and permitting appeal of the JR's 11 December 2023 order. |
| 2024-01-10 | UPC_CoA_404/2023 | Court of Appeal | Application RoP262.1 (b) | Procedural | Dismissed | Order of the Court of Appeal dated 10 January 2024 refusing two applications to intervene in the appeal by Ocado against the public register access order. Mathys & Squire LLP and Bristows (Ireland) LLP applied to intervene, arguing they had parallel pending R. 262 applications before the Central Division that raised the same legal issues. The CoA rejected both applications as inadmissible for lack of legal interest in the result of the appeal: a party applicant whose separate R. 262 application is stayed pending the appeal's outcome does not have a sufficient legal interest under the UPC intervention rules, as the outcome of the appeal would not directly and necessarily affect their own applications. |