Cases
Workhorse listing across all UPC cases. Filters apply across tabs.
| Date | Case | Division | Action | Motion | Outcome | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-08-14 | UPC_APP_16918/2025 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal issued an order in Barco v. Yealink proceedings concerning an application for leave to change the claim (R. 263 RoP) and a request for further written pleadings (R. 36 RoP). The court denied leave to introduce a subsidiary claim that broadened the previous claim scope without justification for the late filing. The court also addressed the boundaries of permissible references to first-instance oral hearing statements on appeal. |
| 2025-06-12 | UPC_APP_27016/2025 | The Hague LD | Application Rop 333 | Procedural | Procedural only | The Hague Local Division issued a procedural order on a R. 333 RoP application by various Moderna entities (defendants) regarding service and deadlines for filing the Statement of Defence in infringement proceedings brought by Arbutus Biopharma and Genevant Sciences. The court denied requests to stay service or extend deadlines for individual defendants not yet formally served, while setting a single consolidated deadline for all Moderna group defendants to file one joint Statement of Defence. |
| 2025-05-21 | UPC_APP_16529/2025 | Dusseldorf LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | The Düsseldorf Local Division issued an order dealing with Siemens's request for security for costs against Hologic (claimant, domiciled in the US) in the infringement and revocation proceedings concerning EP 2 352 431. The court addressed the burden of proof on the requesting party to show that enforcement would be unduly burdensome, requiring evidence of both applicable foreign law and its practical application. |
| 2025-05-08 | ORD_10064/2025 | Munich LD | Generic Order | Procedural | Procedural only | The Munich Local Division judge-rapporteur issued a comprehensive interim conference order in the Sanofi pharmaceutical infringement proceedings against multiple generic manufacturers, covering the substitution of Sanofi Mature IP by Sanofi SA, interim questions of invalidity (including admissibility of counterclaims and late-filed arguments), and procedural scheduling. The order provided preliminary guidance on damages calculation methodology and noted that the EPO Board of Appeal outcome would be relevant to further steps. |
| 2025-04-17 | UPC_APP_18039/2025 | The Hague LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | The Hague Local Division issued a procedural order rejecting Moderna defendants' requests to extend the deadline for filing preliminary objections and the Statement of Defence under R. 333 RoP, while setting a single consolidated deadline for all Moderna group defendants to file one joint Statement of Defence in the Arbutus/Genevant v. Moderna infringement proceedings (UPC_CFI_191-192/2025). |
| 2025-03-18 | UPC_APP_45195/2024 | Munich LD | Preliminary objection | motionName.jurisdictional | Procedural only | The Munich Local Division dismissed Roku's preliminary objection (R. 19 RoP) in the infringement action brought by Dolby International AB, rejecting arguments that (i) the UPCA is incompatible with EU primary law, (ii) Art. 47(2) EU Charter / Art. 6(1) ECHR is violated, and (iii) the Munich Local Division lacks territorial jurisdiction. The court confirmed that incompatibility of the UPCA with EU law is not a valid ground under R. 19.1 RoP, and that for jurisdiction purposes it suffices that the claimant credibly alleges an infringing act in Germany. |
| 2025-01-09 | APL_46747/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal dismissed Abbott Diabetes Care's appeal against a first-instance order on public access to the register (R. 262.1(b) RoP), confirming that a member of the public generally has an interest in accessing written pleadings and evidence after a decision concluding first-instance proceedings has been rendered, even if an appeal is pending. The court clarified the requirements for a 'reasoned request' for access and the balancing of interests under Art. 45 UPCA. |
| 2024-09-16 | APL_33746/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal dismissed ICPillar LLC's appeal against a first-instance order requiring security for costs (R. 158 RoP). The court upheld the finding that a bank guarantee from a US-licensed bank does not provide adequate security under R. 158 RoP, and that this requirement is substantively justified and does not constitute unlawful nationality discrimination. The court also confirmed its discretion to disregard late-filed evidence even absent objection from the other party (R. 222.2 RoP). |
| 2024-07-04 | ORD_40039/2024 | Mannheim LD | Generic Order | Procedural | Procedural only | The Mannheim Local Division issued a procedural guidance order in the infringement action by Panasonic against Xiaomi entities concerning EP 2 568 724. The order set out the court's preliminary views on the infringement analysis of key claim features and requested submissions from the parties on specific technical and legal questions in preparation for the oral hearing. |
| 2024-05-02 | UPC_APP_20143/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal issued an order on the application for suspensive effect filed by Progress Maschinen & Automation AG, concerning an order by the Milan Local Division that had granted preservation of evidence and inspection orders in favour of AWM and SCHNELL. The court examined whether suspensive effect was warranted to prevent the appeal from being rendered largely ineffective. |
| 2024-04-23 | UPC_APP_11453/2024 | Munich LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | The Munich Local Division denied the applications by Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Texas Instruments Inc., and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH for security for costs against Network System Technologies LLC (NST), the claimant domiciled in the US. The court held that mere foreign domicile is insufficient to order security, and that defendants failed to provide concrete evidence of actual difficulties in enforcing a cost order against NST. |