Cases
Workhorse listing across all UPC cases. Filters apply across tabs.
| Date | Case | Division | Action | Motion | Outcome | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-05-13 | APL_8/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | PI denied | Order by the Court of Appeal (UPC_CoA_1/2024, 13 May 2024) dismissing VusionGroup SA's (formerly SES-imagotag) appeal against the first-instance refusal of a preliminary injunction based on unitary patent EP 3 883 277 (electronic shelf labels). The CoA found that Hanshow's products do not fall within claim 1 because the antenna is not positioned further towards the front face than the circuit board as required; VusionGroup was ordered to bear costs. |
| 2024-04-03 | APL_588422/2023 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal rejected Juul Labs International Inc.'s appeal against first-instance orders allowing NJOY Netherlands B.V. to rectify the name of a party (Juul Labs Inc. to Juul Labs International Inc.) in five sets of revocation proceedings, and held that no costs order would be issued on appeal since the appeal was not a final decision concluding the action. |
| 2024-04-03 | APL_588423/2023 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | Order by the Court of Appeal (Panel 1a, 3 April 2024) in five consolidated appeals (UPC_CoA_433-438/2023) upholding first-instance orders allowing NJOY Netherlands B.V. to rectify the name of the defendant in five revocation actions from Juul Labs, Inc. to Juul Labs International, Inc. (the registered patent proprietor). The CoA also clarified that costs are not awarded at appellate stage when the CoA decision does not conclude the action (R. 242.1 RoP). |
| 2024-04-03 | APL_588426/2023 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Dismissed | Court of Appeal order rejecting Juul Labs International's appeal against the Court of First Instance order allowing rectification of the defendant's name in five revocation actions filed by NJOY Netherlands B.V. (originally naming Juul Labs, Inc. instead of registered proprietor Juul Labs International, Inc.). The Court of Appeal held the rectification was permissible since the appellant was not unreasonably prejudiced. No costs order was made in this interlocutory appeal, to be deferred to the final merits decision. Appeal rejected. |
| 2024-04-03 | APL_588420/2023 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Dismissed | Court of Appeal dismissed Juul Labs International Inc.'s appeal against five first-instance orders allowing NJOY Netherlands B.V. to rectify the incorrectly stated defendant name in five revocation actions (EP 3 498 115, EP 3 504 990, EP 3 504 989, EP 3 504 991, EP 3 430 921). The court held that despite the naming error, it should have been clear to the appellant that the actions were directed against it as the registered proprietor. No cost order was made as the appeal did not conclude the revocation actions. |
| 2024-03-11 | ORD_12169/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic Order | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | Court of Appeal order correcting an error in headnote 2, paragraph 3 of a prior order (26 February 2024) concerning the interpretation of patent claims in provisional measures proceedings between 10x Genomics/Harvard (applicants) and NanoString Technologies (respondents). The correction clarifies the principles for claim scope interpretation under Art. 69 EPC: the claim is the decisive basis (not merely a guideline); description and drawings are always used as explanatory aids; the claim is to be construed from the perspective of the skilled person; the aim is to combine appropriate protection with sufficient legal certainty. |
| 2024-02-26 | UPC_APP_6601/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal of the UPC refused to stay the provisional measures appeal proceedings despite NanoString's Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing in the US. The court held that even if the insolvency threshold under R. 311.1 RoP was met, no stay was warranted where the oral proceedings were already concluded and the case was ready for decision, balancing procedural economy and cost efficiency under Art. 41(3) UPCA. |
| 2024-02-26 | UPC_APP_6601/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | Court of Appeal order declining to stay the provisional measures appeal proceedings following NanoString's insolvency (Chapter 11 bankruptcy under US law). The Court held that under R. 311(1) RoP, proceedings need not be stayed when a party is declared insolvent after the close of oral argument if the case is ready for decision, as principles of procedural economy, cost-efficiency and a fair balance between party interests (Art. 41(3) UPCA) support proceeding to judgment. US Chapter 11 proceedings qualified as insolvency under the applicable lex fori concursus. |