Cases
Workhorse listing across all UPC cases. Filters apply across tabs.
| Date | Case | Division | Action | Motion | Outcome | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-03-18 | UPC_CFI_127/2025 | Milan LD | Application for preserving evidence pursuant to RoP192 | Evidence | Procedural only | The Milan Local Division granted Prinoth S.p.A. an order for preservation of evidence, inspection and seizure against Xelom S.r.l. concerning EP 1 995 159 and EP 2 507 436 (snow grooming vehicles), in advance of main proceedings. |
| 2025-03-18 | UPC_CFI_554/2024 | The Hague LD | Application for preserving evidence pursuant to RoP192 | Evidence | Procedural only | A standing judge at The Hague Local Division granted Data Detection Technologies an ex-parte order to preserve evidence at the Seeds meets Technology 2024 fair in the Netherlands, authorising inspection, photography and seizure of documents relating to Doytec's seed counting machine allegedly infringing EP 2 569 713. |
| 2025-03-17 | UPC_APP_66581/2024 | Munich LD | Application RoP262A | Procedural | Costs only | The Local Division Munich issued a combined order on a cost decision application, a confidentiality request (R.262A RoP) regarding the cost decision documents, and a request to amend pleadings (R.263 RoP), determining the scope of confidentiality protection for fee schedules and invoices in Edwards Lifesciences vs. Meril cost proceedings. |
| 2025-03-17 | UPC_APP_66363/2024 | Hamburg LD | Preliminary objection | motionName.jurisdictional | Procedural only | Procedural order from the Hamburg Local Division (UPC_CFI_169/2024) on a preliminary objection by MediaTek challenging international jurisdiction. The Court dismissed the objection, confirming UPC jurisdiction under Art. 31 UPCA and Art. 71b(2) Brussels-Ia Regulation, holding that the UPC has jurisdiction for all patent infringements committed in a UPC Member State regardless of the defendant's domicile. |
| 2025-03-14 | UPC_APP_11294/2025 | Dusseldorf LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | Düsseldorf Local Division procedural order in infringement proceedings by Roche entities (F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG and Roche Diabetes Care GmbH) against Tandem Diabetes Care, VitalAire, Dinno Santé, Air Liquide Healthcare, and Rubin Medical ApS concerning EP 1 970 677. The order (judge-rapporteur Dr. Schumacher) addresses simultaneous interpretation at the oral hearing (R. 109.1 RoP). No substantive ruling. |
| 2025-03-13 | UPC_APP_7866/2025 | Paris CD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | The Paris Central Division (Panel 2) rejected Microsoft Corporation's application to have Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy's infringement action declared manifestly inadmissible on the grounds that the claimant's representative allegedly had excessive financial authority over the claimant entity, finding that a lack of valid representation does not render the action inadmissible but merely requires the party to remedy the deficit. |
| 2025-03-13 | UPC_CFI_665/2024 | Munich LD | Generic Order | Procedural | Procedural only | The Munich Local Division issued a scheduling order in the Adeia Guides v Walt Disney Company patent infringement proceedings (EP 2 793 430), setting dates for interim conference and oral hearing, and proceeding with both infringement action and counterclaim for revocation. |
| 2025-03-11 | ACT_17336/2024 | Mannheim LD | Infringement Action | Procedural | Procedural only | The Mannheim Local Division ordered a separation of proceedings under Rules 302.1, 303.2 and 340.2 RoP, splitting off claims related to Poland, Spain, Turkey, and the UK pending guidance from the ECJ (Case C-339/22) on international jurisdiction under the Brussels Ia Regulation. |
| 2025-03-11 | UPC_APP_6818/2025 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | Costs | Costs only | The Court of Appeal ruled on multiple applications for refund of court fees related to three separate appeal proceedings between 10x Genomics/Harvard and Vizgen, determining the applicable court fee refund rules following the conclusion of those appeal proceedings. |
| 2025-03-11 | UPC_APP_6815/2025 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | Costs | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal issued an order granting 10x Genomics's applications for partial refund of court fees following withdrawal of three appeals (APL_59634/2024, APL_61301/2024, APL_26/2025) against Hamburg Local Division orders concerning EP 4 108 782 (10x v. Vizgen). Court fees were refunded at 60% (for the appeal withdrawn before close of written procedure) and 20% (for appeals withdrawn before close of oral procedure) pursuant to R. 370.9(b) RoP. |
| 2025-03-11 | ORD_11863/2025 | Mannheim LD | Generic Order | motionName.jurisdictional | Infringed | Decision by Mannheim Local Division (UPC_CFI_162/2024, 11 March 2025) finding NUC Electronics Co., Ltd. liable for direct infringement of claim 1 of EP 2 028 981 B1 (slow juicer / juice extractor) in France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Denmark and Romania. An injunction was granted, damages were declared owed, and information obligations were imposed. The decision extensively addressed the intertemporal applicability of UPCA substantive law vs. national law to pre-UPCA and ongoing acts, and the primacy of Art. 26 Brussels Ia Reg. over R. 19.7 RoP on submission of jurisdiction. |
| 2025-03-11 | ACT_17365/2024 | Mannheim LD | Infringement Action | Procedural | Procedural only | Mannheim Local Division procedural order in infringement proceedings by Hurom Co., Ltd. against NUC Electronics Co., Ltd. concerning EP 2 028 981. Following the ECJ's decision in C-339/22 (BSH Hausgeräte) on international jurisdiction under Brussels Ia Regulation, the panel ordered separation of proceedings: a partial decision will be issued on national parts for which jurisdiction is established, while the question of jurisdiction over non-EU defendants is separated for further consideration after the parties can comment on the ECJ ruling. No substantive infringement decision issued. |
| 2025-03-11 | UPC_APP_6812/2025 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | Costs | Procedural only | Court of Appeal order granting reimbursement of court fees to 10x Genomics and Harvard following withdrawal of three appeals against orders in the Hamburg Local Division proceedings against Vizgen (EP 4 108 782). 60% reimbursement granted for the appeal withdrawn before closure of written proceedings; 20% for each of the two appeals withdrawn before closure of oral proceedings. |
| 2025-03-11 | UPC_CFI_201/2024 | Munich LD | Generic application | — | Procedural only | Order from Munich Local Division dated 11 March 2025 on procedural matters arising from a preliminary injunction dispute between Syngenta and Sumi Agro. The panel upheld the judge-rapporteur's earlier order dismissing Sumi Agro's application to revoke provisional measures (which had been granted on 27 August 2024). The panel held that Syngenta had filed and paid court fees for the main proceedings in time to satisfy R. 213(1) and R. 15(2) RoP, confirming that payment does not require receipt by the court before the deadline, only that the fee was paid. Syngenta's application for re-establishment of rights was also dismissed as unfounded. Leave to appeal was granted given the fundamental interpretive issues involved. |
| 2025-03-11 | UPC_CFI_159/2024 | Mannheim LD | Generic Order | Infringement merits | Infringed | Hurom's patent EP 2 028 981 (slow juicer) was found infringed by NUC Electronics Europe GmbH and WARMCOOK. An injunction was granted covering France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Denmark and Romania. Defendants were ordered to pay damages (amount to be determined), provide information, destroy/recall infringing products, and pay EUR 56,000 in interim legal costs. The court also addressed the intertemporal application of UPCA substantive law to acts committed before and after 1 June 2023. Partial dismissal of remaining requests. Value in dispute set at EUR 675,000. |
| 2025-03-10 | UPC_APP_15/2025 | Munich LD | Application RoP262A | Procedural | Procedural only | The Munich Local Division granted Promosome LLC's application under Rule 262A RoP for confidentiality protection of certain exhibits (VB 4a and VB 4b) in its infringement action against BioNTech and Pfizer entities. |
| 2025-03-10 | UPC_APP_15/2025 | Munich LD | Application RoP262A | Procedural | Procedural only | Munich Local Division issued a confidentiality order under Rule 262A RoP in the infringement action by BioNTech/Pfizer entities against Promosome LLC (EP 2 401 365). The order protected specific exhibits (VB 4a and VB 4b) containing confidential licensing information, granting access only to named representatives and specified individuals from each party. The preliminary protection from a prior order was lifted to the extent superseded. |
| 2025-03-07 | ACT_590302/2023 | Dusseldorf LD | Infringement Action | Infringement merits | Not infringed | Düsseldorf Local Division full merits judgment in an infringement action by Tridonic GmbH & Co KG against CUPOWER entities concerning EP 2 011 218 B1 (a patent relating to LED driver/control circuits). The court dismissed the infringement action in its entirety, finding that the accused LED power supply products do not fulfil feature 7.4 of the patent (decoupling element) because the capacitor C3 in the defendants' design does not achieve the complete electrical separation required by the claim – it remains continuously connected to the control unit regardless of switch state. The defendants' counterclaim for revocation was also dismissed (patent maintained). Costs were split: claimant bears costs of the infringement action; defendants bear costs of the revocation counterclaim equally. |
| 2025-03-05 | UPC_APP_6378/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 265 | Procedural | Withdrawn | The Court of Appeal granted 10x Genomics and Harvard College's requests to withdraw three pending appeals against discovery/document production orders issued by the Hamburg Local Division in the infringement proceedings against Vizgen Inc., with no costs order by agreement of both parties. |
| 2025-03-05 | UPC_APP_6377/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 265 | Procedural | Withdrawn | Order of the Court of Appeal permitting the withdrawal of three appeals (APL_59634/2024, APL_61301/2024, APL_26/2025) filed by 10x Genomics, Inc. and President and Fellows of Harvard College against orders of the Hamburg Local Division concerning security for costs in infringement proceedings against Vizgen, Inc. Both parties consented and waived costs decisions. The appeal proceedings were declared closed. |
| 2025-03-05 | UPC_APP_6376/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 265 | Procedural | Withdrawn | Order of the Court of Appeal (Panel 1a) granting three applications by 10x Genomics and President and Fellows of Harvard College for withdrawal of three pending appeals (UPC_CoA_654/2024, UPC_CoA_700/2024, and UPC_CoA_1/2025) against Hamburg Local Division orders in the infringement proceedings against Vizgen Inc. The three appeals had been filed in connection with various case management orders made by the Hamburg Local Division in the main UPC_CFI_22/2023 proceedings. All three appeals were permitted to be withdrawn. |
| 2025-03-04 | UPC_APP_4496/2025 | Dusseldorf LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | The Düsseldorf Local Division issued a procedural order in the GlaxoSmithKline v Pfizer RSV vaccine case (EP4183412), deciding to bifurcate by referring the counterclaim for revocation to the Milan Central Division while proceeding with the infringement action, and granting a one-month extension for Pfizer's rejoinder. |
| 2025-03-04 | APL_51115/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | PI granted | Order by the Court of Appeal (UPC_CoA_523/2024, 3 March 2025) dismissing Sumi Agro's appeal and upholding the preliminary injunction granted by the first instance in favour of Syngenta for EP 2 152 073 (crop protection). The CoA found the patent more likely than not valid and infringed, extended the injunction to Romania following its UPCA accession, reversed the first-instance costs decision and ordered Sumi Agro to bear all costs at first instance and on appeal. The CoA also held that a cost decision must be issued in inter partes PI proceedings. |
| 2025-03-04 | UPC_APP_1153/2025 | Dusseldorf LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | Procedural order from Düsseldorf Local Division (judge-rapporteur Thomas) refusing parties' requests to allow further written pleadings under R. 36 RoP in infringement proceedings concerning EP 2 755 901. The order holds that applications to exchange further submissions were not successful, as claimant (Hartmann Packaging A/S) raised equivalence infringement arguments without proper procedural basis. No substantive ruling on infringement or validity. |
| 2025-03-03 | UPC_CFI_142/2025 | Mannheim LD | Application for preserving evidence pursuant to RoP192 | Evidence | Procedural only | Mannheim Local Division rejected an ex parte application for preservation of evidence (saisie) against an anonymous defendant for alleged infringement of an anonymous patent. The Court found the evidentiary threshold for granting the saisie was not met. This is a redacted decision with all party and patent details anonymised. |
| 2025-03-03 | UPC_CoA_805/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Withdrawn | The Court of Appeal (Panel 1b: Grabinski, Gougé, Germano) permitted Curio Bioscience's withdrawal of its appeal (APL_65956/2024) against the Düsseldorf Local Division's order requiring Curio to provide security for costs of EUR 200,000 in the infringement action by 10x Genomics concerning EP 2 697 391. 10x Genomics did not object to the withdrawal. Proceedings declared closed; no cost decision needed. |
| 2025-03-03 | UPC_CFI_492/2024 | Copenhagen LD | Application for preserving evidence pursuant to RoP192 | Evidence | Procedural only | Order by the Copenhagen Local Division in preservation of evidence proceedings. The court ruled that the supplementary IT expert report from the evidence preservation procedure may be disclosed to the parties' representatives under confidentiality obligations. The court declined to impose penalty payments at that stage. Costs deferred to main proceedings. |
| 2025-03-03 | UPC_CFI_164/2024 | Paris CD | Generic Order | — | Procedural only | The Central Division Paris ordered claimant Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy to appoint a new patent-qualified representative to replace its existing representative who lacked the requisite independence required under UPC rules. The court granted a period for compliance and required ratification of prior acts. The defendant's request to reject the infringement action as manifestly inadmissible was deferred pending the claimant's compliance. |
| 2025-03-03 | UPC_CFI_54/2024 | Munich LD | Infringement Action | — | Procedural only | Procedural order issued by the Munich Local Division following the Interim Conference of 28 February 2025 in two consolidated infringement actions by Headwater Research LLC against Samsung. The order addressed procedural matters including inadmissibility of Samsung's invalidity attack under Art. 138(1)(e) EPC, the standing-to-sue issue, treatment of a witness statement, and admissibility of late-filed documents ZP8-ZP9. No substantive ruling on infringement or validity. |
| 2025-02-28 | UPC_APP_2829/2025 | Munich LD | Amend Document | Procedural | Procedural only | The Munich Local Division ruled on Esko-Graphics' R. 263 RoP application to amend its infringement claim to include the Netherlands (where the patent had since been restored) after the Statement of Claim had been filed, in proceedings against XSYS entities. |
| 2025-02-28 | UPC_APP_7719/2025 | Munich CD | Application Rop305 | Procedural | Procedural only | The Central Division (Munich) granted Virdia Inc.'s application to substitute International N&H Denmark ApS as the defendant in UPM-Kymmene's revocation action, following assignment of EP 2 611 800 to the new entity. |
| 2025-02-28 | UPC_CFI_312/2023 | Paris CD | Revocation Action | Revocation merits | Patent amended | Decision on the revocation action by NJOY Netherlands B.V. against Juul Labs International Inc. concerning EP 3 504 989 (vaping/e-cigarette device). The court maintained the patent in amended form (Auxiliary Request 1, filed 22 July 2024) with effect for Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal and Sweden. The patent as granted was found invalid. Each party bears its own costs since both parties partially succeeded. |
| 2025-02-27 | UPC_APP_7494/2025 | Nordic-Baltic RD | Application Rop 265 | Procedural | Settled | The Nordic-Baltic Regional Division declared provisional measures proceedings between Fapa Vital AG and Valentis Baltic UAB concerning EP1978949 closed following the applicant's withdrawal after a settlement, ordered 60% reimbursement of court fees under R.370.9(b)(i) RoP, and declined to issue a cost decision as agreed by the parties. |
| 2025-02-27 | UPC_APP_5729/2025 | Milan CD | Application Rop 265 | Procedural | Withdrawn | Central Division Milan closed revocation proceedings UPC 57037/2024 filed by SharkNinja Italy S.R.L. against Dyson Technology Limited's EP 2 043 492. The parties had agreed to settle litigation and signed a term sheet. SharkNinja requested withdrawal of the revocation action with Dyson's consent. No cost decision was needed. SharkNinja was entitled to a 60% refund of court fees (EUR 12,000) under R. 370.9(b)(i) as the withdrawal occurred before closure of the written procedure. Value of the case set at EUR 500,000. |
| 2025-02-27 | UPC_CFI_57/2024 | Milan CD | Generic application | — | Settled | Order from the Milan Central Division dated 27 February 2025 permitting SharkNinja Italy S.R.L. to withdraw its revocation action against Dyson Technology Limited (EP 2 043 492) following a settlement agreement. Claimant had filed a stay request on 3 January 2025 on grounds of a settlement term sheet, subsequently requested withdrawal on 3–4 February 2025, and Dyson consented. The proceedings were declared closed. A 60% reimbursement of court fees (EUR 12,000) was granted as the action was withdrawn before closure of the written procedure (R. 370.9(b)(i) RoP). No cost decision was required. |
| 2025-02-26 | UPC_APP_2369/2025 | Munich LD | Application Rop 362 | Procedural | Procedural only | The Munich Local Division issued a corrective order amending the operative part of a prior decision to reflect the substitution of the party in the revocation counterclaim proceedings, and deferred ruling on an application to bar proceedings under Rule 362 RoP until the main hearing. |
| 2025-02-26 | UPC_APP_6598/2025 | Paris LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | The Paris Local Division rejected Gisela Mayer GmbH's application for security for legal costs under R. 158 RoP against French claimant NJ Diffusion SARL, finding that NJ Diffusion's positive financial position meant there was no demonstrated risk that it could not pay a potential cost award capped at €56,000. |
| 2025-02-26 | UPC_APP_8530/2025 | Dusseldorf LD | Generic application | Procedural | Dismissed | Request by defendant Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd. for permission to file an additional pleading (R. 36 RoP) in infringement proceedings Grundfos Holding A/S v. Hefei Xinhu (Düsseldorf Local Division, EP 2 778 423) was rejected. The request was filed more than six weeks after the Chinese Patent Office invalidated the counterpart Chinese patent, and the defendant failed to explain the delay. Filing shortly before the scheduled oral hearing (27 March 2025) would have unduly disadvantaged the claimant and the court. |
| 2025-02-26 | ORD_9486/2025 | Munich LD | Generic Order | Procedural | Procedural only | Procedural order of the Munich Local Division in infringement and revocation counterclaim proceedings concerning a metal sintering preparation patent. The order addresses: (1) correction of a prior order of 2 December 2024 by adding an operative clause ordering the substitution of the counter-claimant in the revocation proceedings from Heraeus Precious Metals to Heraeus Electronics; (2) request for review by the panel under R. 333 RoP; and (3) a claimant application regarding the counterclaim under R. 362 RoP concerning the German designation of the patent. |
| 2025-02-25 | UPC_APP_608/2025 | Munich LD | Application Rop 333 | Procedural | Procedural only | The Munich Local Division panel reviewed the judge-rapporteur's decision to grant only 40% court fee reimbursement (rather than 60% sought by Panasonic) following settlement-based withdrawal of the infringement actions and counterclaims. |
| 2025-02-25 | UPC_APP_619/2025 | Munich LD | Application Rop 333 | Procedural | Costs only | Munich Local Division panel order reviewing (R. 333 RoP) the judge-rapporteur's earlier decision to refund only 40% of court fees following withdrawal of infringement actions and counterclaims (after out-of-court settlement) in patent proceedings by Panasonic Holdings Corporation against Xiaomi entities (UPC_CFI_220/2023) and Guangdong OPPO Mobile (UPC_CFI_221/2023) concerning EP 3 024 163. Panasonic argued a 60% refund was due. The panel confirmed the 40% refund rate, finding the withdrawals occurred after closure of the written procedure (R. 370.9(b)(ii) RoP). |
| 2025-02-25 | UPC_APP_516/2025 | Munich LD | Application Rop 333 | Procedural | Settled | Munich Local Division order reviewing (under R. 333 RoP) an earlier order that granted only 40% court fee reimbursement following the parties' settlement and mutual withdrawal of infringement action and revocation counterclaims. The parties had agreed on settlement in late 2024 after intensive proceedings in a complex SEP case (OPPO vs Panasonic re EP 2 197 132). The claimant challenged the 40% reimbursement, arguing that 60% should apply, contending the case qualified as exceptional under R. 370.9(e) RoP given the extraordinary amount of work the court had performed (far above average). The order addresses what constitutes an 'exceptional case' permitting reduction of the standard fee refund schedule. |
| 2025-02-24 | UPC_APP_7141/2025 | Munich LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | The Munich Local Division issued a procedural order following an interim conference in the Hand Held Products v. Scandit infringement action, addressing issues including partial withdrawal of claims for direct infringement, Rule 36 requests, and workflow obligations under the case management system. |
| 2025-02-24 | UPC_APP_15954/2024 | Munich LD | Generic application | Costs | Costs only | The Munich Local Division (judge-rapporteur) issued a final costs decision for the provisional measures proceedings (both first instance and appeal) in the 10x Genomics v. NanoString matter. NanoString (respondents in the cost proceedings) were ordered to pay EUR 337,431.50 in costs to the applicants (Bruker/Luxendo/Bruker Nederland), as the costs order following the appeal was final and not merely provisional. The cost application filed after expiry of the one-month deadline was time-barred. |
| 2025-02-24 | UPC_CoA_540/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | PI denied | Court of Appeal rejected Biolitec's appeal against the Düsseldorf Local Division's refusal to grant a preliminary injunction. The CoA upheld the first-instance order, finding that Biolitec had not demonstrated the necessity of provisional measures: proceedings on the merits could be awaited; the status quo on the market had existed for years before the patent was granted; and Biolitec failed to demonstrate sufficient evidence of urgency regarding stocking or tender-related harm. Biolitec was ordered to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings. |
| 2025-02-24 | UPC_CoA_540/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | PI denied | German-language signed version of the Court of Appeal order rejecting Biolitec's appeal in the provisional measures proceedings against Light Guide Optics and SIA LIGHTGUIDE International. Identical in substance to the English version: appeal rejected, Biolitec ordered to bear costs. The provisional injunction was denied because proceedings on the merits could be awaited and necessity was not demonstrated. |
| 2025-02-21 | ACT_61342/2024 | Hamburg LD | Application for provisional measures | Preliminary injunction | PI denied | The Hamburg Local Division dismissed Teleflex Life Sciences II LLC's application for provisional measures against Speed Care Mineral GmbH regarding hemostatic wound-care products, because Teleflex failed to demonstrate with sufficient certainty that the attacked embodiment contained a 'binder' as required by the patent claims, and the burden of proof was not reversed. |
| 2025-02-21 | ORD_8874/2025 | Court of Appeal | Generic Order | Procedural | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal (Standing Judge Ingeborg Simonsson) ruled on admissibility issues in Hanshow's appeal against the Munich Local Division's cost decision in VusionGroup's provisional measures proceedings (EP 3 883 277). The Court held that: (1) cost applications constitute summary proceedings; (2) R. 221 RoP does not always require a separate Statement of Appeal after leave to appeal; an application for leave to appeal that sets out the reasons and arguments may serve as both; (3) the Application for Leave treated as the Statement of Appeal was admissible. The Court addressed the substance of the appeal on this basis. |
| 2025-02-21 | UPC_CoA_618/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic Order | — | Costs only | The Court of Appeal addressed procedural issues regarding court fees for an appeal concerning a cost-fixing application, including a request for default judgment and a request for leave to appeal a cost decision under Rule 221 RoP. The order concerned the admissibility of a cost-fixing appeal following earlier proceedings in which the Munich Local Division had denied VusionGroup's preliminary injunction request and ordered costs. |
| 2025-02-20 | UPC_APP_2588/2025 | Dusseldorf LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | The Düsseldorf Local Division issued a procedural order allowing 10x Genomics to exchange the enforcement security deposit for the preliminary injunction against Curio Bioscience with a bank guarantee, following the approach set in the Ortovox v. Mammut precedent. |