Cases
Workhorse listing across all UPC cases. Filters apply across tabs.
| Date | Case | Division | Action | Motion | Outcome | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-09-24 | UPC_APP_50666/2024 | Milan CD | Application Rop 333 | Procedural | Procedural only | Milan Central Division (24 September 2024) – R. 333 review panel approved the judge-rapporteur's order of 4 September 2024, which declined to order joinder with the parallel Milan Local Division proceedings and retained the case in the Central Division. The panel confirmed the JR's competence to act in the absence of an assigned full panel. |
| 2024-09-24 | UPC_APP_49796/2024 | Paris LD | Amend Document | Procedural | Procedural only | Paris Local Division procedural order (judge-rapporteur) in an infringement action by I.G.B. S.r.l. against Unilever France concerning EP 3 997 002. Unilever France sought leave under R. 263 RoP to amend its requests, specifically regarding modalities for recall/destruction measures (timing, guarantee obligations under R. 352 RoP) as a conditional alternative in the event the court ordered such measures. The order addresses admissibility and scope of the amendment of requests. |
| 2024-09-24 | APL_32347/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | Court of Appeal order on OPPO's appeal concerning requests for production of evidence (R. 190 RoP) to support a FRAND defence. The Court held that a defendant may invoke R. 190.1 RoP to request production of counter-evidence. The court must balance the defendant's interest in disclosure of documents useful to a FRAND defence against the other party's interest in protecting confidential information. The first-instance court has discretion, including as to timing in the proceedings. An application may not yet satisfy the requirements of necessity, relevance and proportionality at one stage but may do so at a later stage. |
| 2024-09-24 | APL_32347/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | Dismissed | Court of Appeal dismissed OPPO and OROPE's appeal against orders denying their requests for production of evidence (R.190 RoP) in FRAND proceedings. The Court held that the CFI acted within its margin of discretion in finding that production of Panasonic's settlement licence agreements did not meet criteria of necessity, relevance and proportionality at the current stage of proceedings. |
| 2024-09-24 | UPC_CoA_298/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | — | Procedural only | Order of the Court of Appeal (Panel 2) on appeals by Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications and OROPE Germany GmbH against the Mannheim Local Division's refusal to order document production (Rule 190 RoP) in FRAND-related patent proceedings by Panasonic. The Court of Appeal held: (1) a defendant may rely on Rule 190.1 to seek production of counter-evidence; (2) the court must balance the defendant's interest in evidence useful for a FRAND defence against the other party's and third parties' confidentiality interests; (3) the first-instance court has discretion under Rule 190, which may include sequencing considerations; (4) the assessment may depend on the procedural stage and may be premature at earlier stages. |
| 2024-09-23 | UPC_APP_33484/2024 | Paris CD | Application RoP262.1 (b) | Procedural | Procedural only | The Paris Central Division (Seat) ruled on a third-party access application (R. 262.1(b) RoP) by KIPA AB (an anonymised applicant) seeking access to all pleadings and evidence in the revocation action between Meril entities and Edwards Lifesciences Corporation concerning EP 4 151 181. The court assessed the applicant's interest as a competitor investor in cardiac implant technology. |
| 2024-09-20 | UPC_APP_51893/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Application RoP262A | Procedural | Procedural only | The Düsseldorf Local Division issued a procedural order on Valeo's R. 262A RoP application for protection of confidential information in the Magna v. Valeo infringement proceedings concerning EP 3 320 602. The court denied Valeo's request for access for a specific additional lawyer (Thierry Lautier) to confidential information, finding no legitimate basis distinguishable from the general representation team. |
| 2024-09-18 | APL_38206/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal allowed Google's appeal and ordered the change of language of the proceedings from German to English, finding that Google's internal working language was English and that it was unduly disadvantaged by having to conduct proceedings in German, while Ona's managing director was proficient in both languages. |
| 2024-09-18 | APL_30169/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Dismissed | Decision of the Court of Appeal dismissing Volkswagen AG's appeal against the Munich Local Division's rejection of preliminary objections (Rule 19/Rule 361 RoP) and finding that the opt-out withdrawals for the patents in suit were validly filed by NST's representative under Rule 5.3(b)(i) RoP without requiring a separate power of attorney. The appeal also failed on the merits of the Rule 361 RoP requests concerning standing to sue and damages for past infringements. |
| 2024-09-18 | APL_38948/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | Court of Appeal order on Apple's appeal against refusal to change the language of proceedings from German to English in infringement proceedings brought by Ona Patents against Apple before the Düsseldorf Local Division. The Court of Appeal clarified that internal working language of parties and their ability to coordinate on technical issues are relevant factors when deciding a language change request on grounds of fairness (Art. 49(5) UPCA). Parallel national court proceedings between the parties are of less relevance to this analysis. |
| 2024-09-18 | UPC_APP_33494/2024 | Nordic-Baltic RD | Application RoP262.1 (b) | Procedural | Procedural only | Procedural order of the Nordic-Baltic Regional Division (full panel) on the same anonymized applicant's third parallel request for access to pleadings and evidence under Rule 262.1(b) RoP in the Edwards Lifesciences v. Meril proceedings (EP 2 628 464). Filed as App_33494/2024, this order applies the same legal principles on public access as the companion orders in App_33316/2024 and App_33493/2024, with substantially identical headnotes and analysis. |
| 2024-09-18 | UPC_APP_33493/2024 | Nordic-Baltic RD | Application RoP262.1 (b) | Procedural | Procedural only | Procedural order of the Nordic-Baltic Regional Division (full panel) on the same anonymized applicant's request for access to pleadings and evidence under Rule 262.1(b) RoP in the Edwards Lifesciences v. Meril proceedings (EP 2 628 464). This is a parallel order filed in the counterclaim proceedings under App. 33493/2024, applying the same legal principles as App_33316/2024. The headnotes and legal analysis concerning public access under Art. 45 UPCA are substantially identical to the order in App_33316/2024. |
| 2024-09-18 | UPC_APP_33316/2024 | Nordic-Baltic RD | Application RoP262.1 (b) | Procedural | Procedural only | Procedural order of the Nordic-Baltic Regional Division (full panel) on an anonymized applicant's request for access to pleadings and evidence under Rule 262.1(b) RoP in the Edwards Lifesciences v. Meril infringement proceedings (EP 2 628 464). The court set out important headnotes on public access: Art. 45 UPCA establishes a principle of openness of UPC proceedings including written procedure, and if an applicant has provided a credible explanation for seeking access, the application should be approved unless confidentiality is necessary. The court addressed whether the applicant's stated interest was sufficient to justify granting access. |
| 2024-09-18 | UPC_CoA_264/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | — | Dismissed | The Court of Appeal dismissed Audi AG's appeal in six consolidated cases challenging the Munich Local Division's refusal to grant preliminary objections under Rule 361 RoP (action manifestly bound to fail) against NST's infringement actions. The court held that R.361 RoP is reserved for clear-cut cases and cannot require the claimant to pre-empt every possible line of defence in the statement of claim. The court also rejected Audi's arguments that opt-outs were invalidly withdrawn, finding the UPC has jurisdiction. |
| 2024-09-17 | UPC_APP_40799/2024 | Paris CD | Application Rop 333 | Procedural | Procedural only | The Central Division Paris panel upheld (on review under R.333 RoP) the judge-rapporteur's confidentiality order protecting certain documents submitted by Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies in the infringement action against Microsoft, and granted leave to appeal the underlying order. |
| 2024-09-17 | UPC_APP_52033/2024 | Mannheim LD | Generic application | Evidence | Procedural only | The Mannheim Local Division rejected Panasonic's application to hear its party expert as a witness at the oral hearing in FRAND/infringement proceedings, finding the application was submitted after close of the interim proceedings and no sufficient grounds existed. |
| 2024-09-17 | APL_25922/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal set aside the Munich Local Division's orders refusing security for costs and ordered Network System Technologies LLC to provide security for costs to Volkswagen AG, finding that NST's financial position as a special-purpose patent enforcement entity created a legitimate concern that a cost order might not be recoverable. |
| 2024-09-17 | ACT_581538/2023 | Brussels LD | Infringement Action | Procedural | Procedural only | The Brussels Local Division issued a procedural order following an interim conference under R. 105.5 RoP, setting the schedule and framework for the oral hearing in this infringement action concerning EP 2 331 036. |
| 2024-09-17 | APL_25919/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | The UPC Court of Appeal set aside the Munich Local Division's orders denying security for costs and ordered Network System Technologies LLC to provide security to Audi AG in amounts of EUR 100,000 (two cases) and EUR 300,000 (one case), finding that the lower court applied too high a standard of proof and that NST's failure to disclose its financial situation warranted the order. |
| 2024-09-17 | UPC_APP_44664/2024 | The Hague LD | Amend Document | Procedural | Procedural only | The Hague Local Division issued a procedural order on Dexcom's request to amend its counterclaim for revocation against Abbott Diabetes Care concerning EP4070727, to add a declaration of non-infringement for the Dexcom G7-System used with a G7-Receiver following Abbott's partial withdrawal of its infringement claim concerning that product. |
| 2024-09-17 | UPC_APP_44663/2024 | The Hague LD | Amend Document | Procedural | Procedural only | The Hague Local Division considered Dexcom's application to amend its counterclaim for revocation to add a declaration of non-infringement claim regarding the G7-System used with the G7-Receiver, following Abbott's partial withdrawal of its infringement claim (i.e. Abbott maintained infringement only for the G7-System with the G7-App, not the G7-Receiver). |
| 2024-09-17 | UPC_APP_42138/2024 | Paris CD | Application Rop 333 | Procedural | Dismissed | Order of the Central Division Paris Seat in Microsoft v Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies (EP 2 671 173). The panel dismissed Microsoft's application to review the judge-rapporteur's earlier order that had rejected Microsoft's request to declare Suinno's action manifestly inadmissible under R. 361 RoP. The panel held that manifest inadmissibility requires the defect to be clearly evident without in-depth analysis. Microsoft's alternative request for leave to appeal and for a preliminary ruling by the CJEU on the independence requirement under Art. 48(5) UPCA was also addressed. |
| 2024-09-17 | APL_26889/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | Court of Appeal ordered the stay of UPC revocation proceedings (UPC_CFI_484/2023) in Mala Technologies Ltd. v Nokia Technology GmbH concerning EP 2 044 709 (German part only), pending the outcome of parallel German Federal Patent Court/BGH revocation proceedings initiated by Nokia Solutions. Applying Art. 30 Brussels I recast Regulation, the court found that the causes of action in both proceedings are almost identical, the parties closely related, and the German proceedings at a more advanced stage. Mala's request for stay was upheld, and Nokia Technology's auxiliary request to limit the stay to the German part was rejected as moot. |
| 2024-09-17 | UPC_APP_39793/2024 | Hamburg LD | Application RoP262.1 (b) | Procedural | Procedural only | Order of the Hamburg Local Division granting Powell Gilbert LLP (as a member of the public) access to written pleadings and evidence in the provisional measures proceedings (ORD_33145/2024) between Ballinno B.V. and UEFA/Kinexon concerning EP 1 944 067. The Court granted access under Rule 262.1(b) RoP, holding that as the provisional measures proceedings had terminated at first instance, the public interest in scrutinising the handling of an early and significant UPC provisional measures decision outweighed confidentiality concerns. |
| 2024-09-17 | UPC_CFI_189/2024 | Paris CD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | Central Division (Paris) order dismissing Meril's application to reject Edwards' counterclaim for infringement as inadmissible. The court retrospectively extended the two-month deadline under Rule 49 RoP by one week to 23 July 2024, finding the counterclaim timely. The court declined to hold a hearing before deciding. |
| 2024-09-17 | UPC_CFI_240/2023 | Milan LD | Infringement Action | Procedural | Procedural only | The Milan Local Division refused Oerlikon's request to admit an eighth auxiliary request to amend EP 2 145 848 B1, finding that AR8 did not constitute an effective response to the new prior art relied upon and that it introduced an inadmissible intermediate generalisation contrary to Art. 84 EPC. |
| 2024-09-17 | UPC_CFI_240/2023 | Milan LD | Infringement Action | Procedural | Procedural only | The Milan Local Division refused Oerlikon's request to admit an eighth auxiliary request to amend EP 2 145 848 B1, finding that AR8 did not constitute an effective response to the new prior art relied upon and that it introduced an inadmissible intermediate generalisation contrary to Art. 84 EPC. |
| 2024-09-16 | UPC_APP_5975/2024 | Paris CD | Generic application | Procedural | Revoked | The Central Division (Paris) granted BMW's revocation action by default against ITCiCo Spain S.L. under Rule 355 RoP, revoking EP 2 796 333 in its entirety for all UPC member states in which it was in force. The defendant failed to participate. |
| 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). |
| 2024-09-16 | ACT_545615/2023 | Mannheim LD | Infringement Action | Procedural | Procedural only | Mannheim Local Division issued a pre-trial procedural order for oral hearing preparation in Panasonic v Xiaomi (UPC_CFI_219/2023), an SEP infringement case concerning EP 2 568 724. The order set a hearing schedule over multiple days (technical issues on day 1, FRAND on day 2), addressed admissibility of document FBD-T13, confidentiality arrangements for FRAND discussions, submission of visual aids, language of pleadings, and set the value in dispute at EUR 8,000,000 for UPC_CFI_219/2023. |
| 2024-09-16 | UPC_CFI_210/2023 | Mannheim LD | Infringement Action | Procedural | Procedural only | Procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division scheduling and structuring the oral hearing in a SEP infringement action. The order confirms hearing dates and provides guidance on the structure of oral submissions, seating arrangements, and confidentiality measures. No substantive ruling on the merits. |
| 2024-09-13 | UPC_APP_42538/2024 | Paris CD | Action against the decision of the EPO (RoP88) | motionName.appeal_epo | Procedural only | The Paris Central Division closed the proceedings after the EPO rectified the contested decision in response to Qualcomm's interlocutory revision application under Rule 88 RoP, without a reimbursement of fees as no special circumstances justified it. |
| 2024-09-13 | ACT_583273/2023 | Munich LD | Infringement Action | Infringement merits | Infringed | Munich Local Division found Belkin GmbH, Belkin International Inc., and Belkin Limited liable for infringement of Philips' EP 2 867 997 B1 (wireless power transfer technology) and dismissed the counterclaims for revocation. An injunction was granted against Belkin's infringing acts outside Germany (German acts excluded due to opt-out/national proceedings). Defendants were ordered to provide information, recall products, pay EUR 119,000 interim damages, and cover approximately 5/6 of costs. The revocation counterclaims were dismissed. (German territorial acts were carved out from the injunction as a separate matter.) |
| 2024-09-13 | UPC_CFI_11/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Generic Order | — | Procedural only | Early procedural order by Düsseldorf Local Division in Grundfos v Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump deciding under R. 37.2 RoP to proceed jointly with infringement action and counterclaim for revocation under Art. 33(3)(a) UPCA. The decision was taken early to allow timely assignment of the technically qualified judge given part-time panel staffing constraints. |
| 2024-09-11 | UPC_APP_36483/2024 | Milan LD | Application for preserving evidence pursuant to RoP192 | Evidence | Procedural only | The Milan Local Division granted Primetals Technologies Austria's ex-parte application for an order to preserve evidence at Danieli's premises concerning steel strip coiler driver technology allegedly infringing EP 2 624 977, ordering inspection, photography, document access and computer forensics assistance. |
| 2024-09-11 | UPC_APP_30248/2024 | Munich LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | The Local Division Munich ordered a correction of party designation under an analogous application of R.305 RoP, distinguishing between a mere misidentification of a defendant and the naming of a non-existent or legally incapable entity. The court allowed the claimant to substitute the correct defendant. |
| 2024-09-11 | UPC_CFI_127/2024 | Munich LD | Generic application | — | Procedural only | Munich Local Division ordered correction of party designations under R.305 RoP by analogy. The Court corrected the names and addresses of defendants 3 and 5 following identification that one defendant did not exist at its stated address and another was incorrectly named. The Registry was instructed to re-serve the statement of claim on the corrected defendant 5. |
| 2024-09-10 | UPC_APP_45837/2024 | Mannheim LD | Application Rop 333 | Procedural | Procedural only | The Mannheim Local Division issued an order on panel review under Rule 333 RoP of a time extension granted by the judge-rapporteur in the Panasonic v. Xiaomi parallel infringement proceedings concerning EP 2 568 724 and EP 2 207 270. |
| 2024-09-09 | ORD_50813/2024 | Munich LD | Generic Order | Procedural | Procedural only | The Munich Local Division vacated its earlier order appointing a translation expert after the claimant confirmed that the parties agreed on the translation of the Chinese-language documents, rendering the expert appointment unnecessary. |
| 2024-09-09 | ACT_50855/2024 | Unknown | — | Preliminary injunction | PI granted | The Hamburg Local Division granted a preliminary injunction (interim measures) to Koninklijke Philips N.V. against Shenzhen Yunding Information Technology Co., Ltd., ordering the immediate seizure of infringing oral cleaning system products at the IFA 2024 trade fair in Berlin. The order was based on alleged direct infringement of EP 3 197 316. |
| 2024-09-09 | UPC_APP_50655/2024 | Munich LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | Procedural order from the Munich Local Division (UPC_CFI_5/2023) granting Philips' application to reschedule the oral hearing in the EP 2 372 863 infringement case from 11 September 2024 to 23 October 2024, at Philips' request and with defendants' consent, to accommodate the pending judgment in a parallel case concerning EP 2 867 997. |
| 2024-09-09 | UPC_CFI_516/2024 | Hamburg LD | Application for provisional measures | Preliminary injunction | PI granted | The Hamburg Local Division granted Philips a preliminary injunction against Shenzhen Yunding at the IFA 2024 trade fair based on EP 3 197 316 B1 (oral care system with post-brushing feedback), ordering the defendant to deliver infringing products to a court bailiff for storage and to pay a fine of up to EUR 250,000 per violation. |
| 2024-09-09 | UPC_CFI_88/2024 | Hamburg LD | Generic application | — | Procedural only | Preliminary procedural order from Hamburg Local Division dated 9 September 2024 in infringement proceedings brought by Roche Diabetes Care GmbH and F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG against Tandem Diabetes Care entities and VitalAire GmbH regarding EP 2 196 231. The order deals with Tandem's request to stay the proceedings. The court balanced the right to a fair trial (Art. 6 ECHR, Art. 47 EU Charter) with the principle that proceedings should normally conclude within one year (RoP Preamble point 7). No stay was granted; the case management timetable was maintained. |
| 2024-09-06 | APL_47300/2024 | Court of Appeal | Request for a discretionary review (RoP 220.3) | motionName.appeal_decision | Dismissed | The Court of Appeal rejected Motorola's request for a discretionary review of a Munich Local Division order that had denied leave to change its claim, finding that Motorola had not demonstrated that review was necessary to ensure consistent application and interpretation of the Rules of Procedure. |
| 2024-09-06 | UPC_APP_45041/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal issued a procedural order in related appeals by Meril entities against Edwards Lifesciences, consolidating multiple appeals and addressing case management for the parallel infringement and counterclaim for revocation proceedings before the Central Division Paris. |
| 2024-09-06 | UPC_APP_45044/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal rejected Meril's requests to expedite three appeals (concerning revocation of EP 3 646 825) at Edwards Lifesciences' expense, finding that the potential risk of an injunction being granted in pending infringement proceedings did not justify expedition. |
| 2024-09-06 | UPC_APP_47922/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Application Rop 333 | Procedural | Procedural only | The Düsseldorf Local Division issued an order on panel review under Rule 333 RoP of a prior order concerning security for legal costs requested by defendant Aarke AB against claimant SodaStream Industries Ltd., addressing the applicable standard of proof and factors for ordering security. |
| 2024-09-06 | ACT_459987/2023 | Munich LD | Infringement Action | Procedural | Procedural only | The Munich Local Division judge-rapporteur issued a procedural order in Edwards Lifesciences v. Meril concerning EP 3 646 825, addressing defendants' arguments that the Central Division Paris first-instance decision on the patent amendment application had failed to consider key invalidity arguments. The judge-rapporteur referred the matter to the full panel, noting that the appeal proceedings before the Court of Appeal would address the alleged deficiencies in the Paris decision. |
| 2024-09-06 | ACT_18551/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Application for provisional measures | Preliminary injunction | PI denied | Order by Düsseldorf Local Division (UPC_CFI_166/2024, 6 September 2024) rejecting Novartis AG and Genentech Inc.'s application for provisional measures against Celltrion Inc. for alleged infringement of EP 3 805 248 B1 (biologic/antibody). The application was dismissed on the merits (infringement insufficiently established). Applicants were ordered to pay interim costs of EUR 138,562.80. The court addressed claim interpretation, imminent infringement, non-applicability of stay of proceedings (R. 295 RoP) to PI proceedings, and the costs gap in the absence of main proceedings. |
| 2024-09-06 | UPC_CFI_165/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Application for provisional measures | — | PI denied | Order of Düsseldorf Local Division rejecting Novartis/Genentech's application for provisional measures against Celltrion Healthcare entities regarding EP 3 805 248 B1 (biosimilar product Epysqli). The court found the requirements for provisional measures were not met and ordered Novartis/Genentech to pay interim costs of EUR 138,562.80. The court set out important headnotes on: the interpretation of Art. 25 and 62 UPCA as autonomous uniform law; the concept of imminent infringement; group company liability; inapplicability of R. 295 RoP to provisional measures applications; and parties' obligation to present focused technical arguments. |