Cases
Workhorse listing across all UPC cases. Filters apply across tabs.
| Date | Case | Division | Action | Motion | Outcome | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-11-27 | UPC_CoA_70/2025 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | Withdrawn | Court of Appeal accepted withdrawal of STRABAG's appeal (UPC_CoA_70/2025) following an out-of-court settlement between STRABAG and SWARCO. The intervenor Chainzone's separate appeal (PC_CoA_001/2025) was declared moot under R.360 RoP, as an intervenor cannot continue an appeal that the supported party has withdrawn. Chainzone bears its own costs. |
| 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. |
| 2024-12-18 | UPC_CFI_390/2023 | Munich LD | Generic application | — | Costs only | Order imposing penalty payments of EUR 46,000 against Belkin companies for non-compliance with the court's disclosure order (accounting for infringement) in Philips v Belkin. The penalty ran at EUR 500/day for 26 days. Remaining requests by Philips were rejected. Philips bears 25% of costs; Belkin bears 75%. |
| 2024-01-03 | UPC_APP_598021/2023 | Munich LD | Infringement Action | Procedural | Procedural only | The Munich Local Division issued a procedural order in Philips IP Ventures v. Edrich et al. (Belkin), granting Philips a one-week extension of the reply deadline in the infringement proceedings, taking into account that the written grounds of a Bundespatentgericht decision revoking the German part of the patent had only been served shortly before Christmas 2023. |
| 2024-01-03 | UPC_APP_598024/2023 | Munich LD | Infringement Action | Procedural | Procedural only | The Munich Local Division issued a procedural order in Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Edrich et al. (Belkin), granting Philips a one-week extension of the reply deadline, mirroring the parallel Philips IP Ventures case and noting that the German part of EP2628233 had also been found invalid by the Bundespatentgericht. |
| 2023-09-27 | UPC_CFI_5/2023 | Munich LD | Infringement Action | Procedural | Procedural only | The Munich Local Division issued a procedural order regarding service of the statement of claim on defendants in an infringement action brought by Philips IP Ventures B.V. against Belkin entities and individual defendants. |
| 2023-09-27 | UPC_CFI_62/2023 | Munich LD | Infringement Action | Procedural | Procedural only | The Munich Local Division issued a procedural order concerning service of the statement of claim on defendants in an infringement action brought by Koninklijke Philips N.V. against Belkin entities and individual defendants. |
| 2023-07-05 | UPC_CFI_62/2023 | Munich LD | Infringement Action | Procedural | Procedural only | The Munich Local Division issued a brief procedural order requiring the claimant to carry out a deficiency correction in the proceedings, equivalent to that already done in a related case. |