Cases
Workhorse listing across all UPC cases. Filters apply across tabs.
| Date | Case | Division | Action | Motion | Outcome | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-12-10 | UPC_CoA_470/2023 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | — | outcomeName.other | The Court of Appeal revoked the Munich Local Division's order imposing penalty payments on NanoString for breach of a provisional injunction regarding EP 4 108 782, and rejected 10x's requests. The Court held that the Court of Appeal's earlier revocation (26 February 2024) of the provisional injunction order of 19 September 2023 had retroactive effect, meaning that the order was void ab initio and therefore could not serve as a valid legal basis for any penalty order, even for alleged breaches prior to the revocation. 10x was ordered to bear the costs of both instances and to reimburse the amount paid by NanoString. |
| 2024-11-01 | UPC_APP_57474/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | Court of Appeal (Judge-Rapporteur) refused Scandit's request for leave to file a reply to Hand Held Products' response to appeal pursuant to R. 36 RoP. The Court held that no further written exchange is provided for under the RoP unless a cross-appeal has been filed, and that the alleged new matter raised in the response to appeal did not justify an exception. |
| 2024-11-01 | UPC_APP_57474/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | German-language version of the same Court of Appeal procedural order (1 November 2024) refusing Scandit's request for leave to file a reply to Hand Held Products' response to appeal pursuant to R. 36 RoP in the preliminary injunction appeal proceedings. |
| 2024-10-15 | CoA_PC 01/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | — | Dismissed | Court of Appeal declared Photon Wave's appeal inadmissible. The CoA held that leave to appeal under R.220.2 RoP (other than together with an appeal against the final decision) must be expressly granted by the Court of First Instance and cannot be presumed. As no express leave to appeal was granted by the Paris Local Division, the appeal was inadmissible. |
| 2024-10-15 | CoA_PC 01/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | — | Dismissed | Court of Appeal declared Photon Wave's appeal inadmissible. The Court held that leave to appeal under R. 220.2 RoP must be expressly granted by the Court of First Instance and cannot be presumed. Since the Paris Local Division had not expressly granted leave to appeal the procedural order of 24 July 2024, the appeal was inadmissible. |
| 2024-10-15 | UPC_CoA_570/2024 | Court of Appeal | Request for a discretionary review (RoP 220.3) | — | Dismissed | Court of Appeal dismissed Microsoft's request for discretionary review (Rule 220.3 RoP) of the Paris Central Division's order refusing to declare Suinno's infringement action manifestly inadmissible under Rule 361 RoP on account of alleged lack of independence of Suinno's representative. The CoA held that the manifestly inadmissible threshold under Rule 361 RoP requires clear-cut cases without in-depth analysis, and that the CFI's refusal to find manifest inadmissibility was not an appropriate case for discretionary review. |