Cases
Workhorse listing across all UPC cases. Filters apply across tabs.
| Date | Case | Division | Action | Motion | Outcome | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-01-15 | UPC_CFI_100/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Infringement Action | Infringement merits | Not infringed | Final decision on the merits in the infringement action by Ona Patents SL against Google Ireland Limited and others (EP 2 263 098 B1, Wi-Fi positioning patent). The court dismissed the infringement action, finding no direct infringement (the accused product did not possess every claimed component). The counterclaim for revocation was also dismissed (patent maintained as valid). Claimant to bear costs of the infringement action; 80% of counterclaim costs to defendants, 20% to claimant. Value in dispute: EUR 6,000,000 (infringement) and EUR 9,000,000 (counterclaim). Key headnotes: register governs proprietor standing; each component of a product must be present for direct infringement. |
| 2025-10-14 | UPC_CFI_100/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Generic Order | Procedural | Procedural only | The Düsseldorf Local Division issued a further procedural order under R. 35 and 36 RoP in the Ona Patents v Google infringement proceedings (EP 2 263 098), addressing procedural steps in the case. |
| 2025-10-13 | UPC_CFI_100/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Application Rop 333 | Procedural | Procedural only | The Düsseldorf Local Division issued a R. 333 RoP review order in the Ona Patents v Google infringement proceedings concerning EP 2 263 098 B1 (Wi-Fi positioning), addressing procedural aspects of the case management. |
| 2025-09-17 | UPC_CFI_99/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Generic application | — | Costs only | Order from the Düsseldorf Local Division dated 17 September 2025 concerning reimbursement of court fees under R. 370.9 and R. 370.11 RoP. The infringement action (filed March 2024 by Ona Patents SL against Apple entities) and subsequently a counterclaim for revocation (filed August 2025 by Apple) were pending when the order was issued. The order deals specifically with court fee reimbursement procedural matters; no substantive ruling on infringement or validity was made. |
| 2025-09-11 | UPC_APP_35855/2025 | Dusseldorf LD | Generic application | Procedural | Costs only | Order of the Düsseldorf Local Division (full panel) on Ona Patents SL's applications for reimbursement of court fees and release of security for costs following withdrawal of the infringement action against Apple Inc. and related entities. The parties agreed to cover their own costs. The court ordered reimbursement of 40% of court fees (EUR 20,000) under Rule 370.9(b)(ii) RoP, treating the case as equivalent to withdrawal in the interim procedure given the depth of the judge-rapporteur's involvement (an August 2025 order requesting extensive documentation comparable to a Rule 103 order). The security provided by Ona Patents was released under Rule 352.2 RoP. |
| 2025-09-05 | UPC_CFI_99/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Application Rop 265 | — | Withdrawn | The Düsseldorf Local Division granted Ona Patents SL leave to withdraw its patent infringement action against Apple entities concerning EP 2 263 098 B1. Simultaneously, the defendants withdrew their counterclaim for revocation. The parties agreed that each side bears its own costs, and no cost decision was issued. The proceedings were declared closed. |
| 2025-08-21 | UPC_APP_34189/2025 | Paris CD | Generic application | Procedural | Settled | Paris Central Division ordered the release of a EUR 25,000 security for procedural costs deposited by Ballinno B.V. (the defendant in a revocation action) to Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH (the claimant), following a settlement agreement between the parties. The main revocation action had been decided on 30 April 2025 (EP 1 944 067 revoked). The court applied Rule 352.2 RoP by analogy, noting the conclusion of the proceedings and the settlement. |
| 2025-08-01 | UPC_CFI_100/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Generic Order | Procedural | Procedural only | Procedural order requiring further written submissions from the parties in the infringement action concerning patent ownership and the presentation of exhibits. The court noted inconsistencies in the claimant's statements on patent ownership and directed supplementary presentations. |
| 2025-07-16 | UPC_CFI_484/2025 | Paris CD | Application RoP262A | — | Procedural only | Procedural order granting Kinexon's application for confidentiality protection (Rule 262A RoP) of litigation cost information contained in a cost decision application. The court held that litigation cost information qualifies as confidential information under Rule 262A and Article 58 UPCA. |
| 2025-05-21 | UPC_CFI_230/2024 | Paris CD | Revocation Action | Procedural | Procedural only | The Central Division Paris issued a rectification order correcting a clerical error in the April 2025 decision that revoked EP 1 994 067 B1 in the Kinexon v Ballinno revocation action, correcting the patent number reference from EP 1 994 067 to EP 1 944 067. |
| 2024-10-14 | UPC_APP_46766/2024 | Paris CD | Generic application | Costs | Procedural only | The Paris Central Division ordered Ballinno to provide security for Kinexon's legal costs in the revocation action concerning EP 1 944 067 B1 (sports tracking), refusing an oral hearing on the security issue and scheduling the main oral hearing for 21 March 2025. |
| 2024-08-30 | UPC_CFI_99/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Application RoP262A | — | Procedural only | Procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division dated 30 August 2024 on confidentiality protection (R. 262A RoP) in infringement proceedings brought by Ona Patents SL against Apple entities. The order addresses the protection of trade secrets, specifically ruling that negative facts (the statement that products do not support certain functionalities) can also be subject to confidentiality. The names of employees involved in the relevant technical matters were also included within the confidentiality order. |
| 2024-08-21 | UPC_APP_43845/2024 | Paris CD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | Application by defendant Ballinno to stay revocation proceedings pending outcome of appeal against denial of provisional measures was refused. The court held that an appeal against the denial of provisional measures does not generally justify a stay of revocation proceedings under Rule 295(m) RoP, and that proceedings must normally allow the final oral hearing at first instance within one year. |