Cases
Workhorse listing across all UPC cases. Filters apply across tabs.
| Date | Case | Division | Action | Motion | Outcome | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-09-01 | UPC_CFI_258/2025 | Paris CD | Preliminary objection | motionName.jurisdictional | Dismissed | The Central Division Paris rejected Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd.'s preliminary objection requesting dismissal of Emporia UK and Ireland Ltd.'s revocation action as inadmissible under Art. 33(4) UPCA. Seoul Viosys argued that Emporia was a 'straw company' acting as a nominee for ex-pert klein GmbH (the defendant in parallel infringement proceedings before the Court of Appeal), and therefore constituted the 'same party'. The Court held that the 'straw company' theory has a legal basis in EU law and may be relevant under Art. 33(4) UPCA, but that mere coordination of litigation strategies between a distributor and its supplier does not constitute proof that one acts as a nominee for the other. |
| 2024-10-10 | UPC_CFI_483/2023 | Dusseldorf LD | Infringement Action | — | Revoked | Düsseldorf Local Division revoked EP 3 223 320 for Germany, France, Italy, and the Netherlands based on the counterclaim for revocation, finding the patent was invalid due to added matter (Art. 138(1)(c) EPC / Art. 123(2) EPC). The infringement action was dismissed as a result. Seoul Viosys (claimant) was ordered to bear all costs. |
| 2024-07-12 | UPC_CFI_363/2023 | Dusseldorf LD | Generic application | motionName.jurisdictional | Procedural only | Procedural order on a request for court-provided simultaneous interpretation. The court held that where a party's representatives master one of the permitted languages of the local division, court-provided interpretation is not available merely because the claimant chose a different permitted language in which those representatives are less proficient. The party may arrange its own interpreter at its own cost. |
| 2023-12-04 | UPC_CFI_363/2023 | Dusseldorf LD | Infringement Action | Procedural | Procedural only | The Düsseldorf Local Division issued a procedural order under Rules 302.1 and 302.2 RoP concerning possible bifurcation or severance of issues in an infringement action by Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. against expert e-Commerce GmbH and others, involving EP 3 926 698 B1 and EP 3 223 320 B1. |