Cases
Workhorse listing across all UPC cases. Filters apply across tabs.
| Date | Case | Division | Action | Motion | Outcome | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-03-04 | UPC_CFI_239/2023 | The Hague LD | Application RoP262A | Procedural | Procedural only | The Hague Local Division granted Plant-e's application for a confidentiality order under R.262A RoP protecting financial information submitted with their reply to a R.158 application, with access limited to counsel only with the consent of the parties. |
| 2024-03-03 | UPC_APP_589842/2023 | The Hague LD | Application RoP262A | Procedural | Procedural only | A minimal document uploaded for technical (CMS) reasons only to close the workflow. No substantive content or ruling. |
| 2024-03-01 | UPC_APP_9978/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Application for provisional measures | Procedural | Procedural only | The Düsseldorf Local Division issued a procedural order in the 10x Genomics v. Curio Bioscience provisional measures proceedings, rejecting 10x Genomics' request for court-ordered simultaneous interpretation at the oral hearing, on grounds that the applicant had itself chosen German as the language of proceedings and had earlier opposed a language change requested by the respondent. |
| 2024-03-01 | UPC_APP_601/2024 | Paris LD | Request to review an order ex-parte | motionName.ex_parte | Dismissed | Paris Local Division (1 March 2024) dismissed Novawell's application to review and revoke the ex parte saisie (preservation of evidence) order issued on 14 November 2023 against C-KORE Systems Limited. The court upheld the saisie carried out by an expert assisted by a bailiff as lawful under French law and R. 196.5 RoP, held the 30-day review period ran from the bailiff's closing minute, and confirmed sufficient evidence of infringement existed at the time of the original order. |
| 2024-02-28 | UPC_APP_7184/2024 | Paris CD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | The Paris Central Division issued a procedural order in a revocation action concerning EP3646825 (Edwards Lifesciences v Meril Italy), addressing a request by Meril to allow a subsequent amendment to the patent by Edwards, in the context of compliance with R.30 RoP requirements for patent amendment applications. |
| 2024-02-28 | UPC_APP_8330/2024 | Paris LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | Paris Local Division order (judge-rapporteur Lignières) in infringement proceedings by ICPillar LLC against ARM Limited and numerous ARM group entities concerning EP 3 000 239. The order addresses service of the statement of claim on four UK-domiciled defendants (Arm Limited, Apical Limited, Simulity Labs Limited, SVF Holdco) through the Hague Service Convention, following failure of electronic service. The order authorises an alternative service method (R. 275.2 RoP). No substantive ruling on infringement. |
| 2024-02-27 | UPC_APP_7184/2024 | Paris CD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | The Paris Central Division ruled on Meril Italy's application to refuse admission of Edwards Lifesciences' subsequent request to amend patent EP 3 646 825, addressing the admissibility of post-deadline patent amendment requests under R.30(2) RoP. |
| 2024-02-27 | UPC_APP_7184/2024 | Paris CD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | The Paris Central Division ruled on Meril Italy's application to refuse admission of Edwards Lifesciences' subsequent request to amend patent EP 3 646 825, addressing the admissibility of post-deadline patent amendment requests under R.30(2) RoP. |
| 2024-02-27 | UPC_APP_7364/2024 | Paris CD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | Order by Central Division Paris (27 February 2024) on Meril Italy's application for a further round of written pleadings in the revocation action UPC_CFI_255/2023 concerning EP 3 646 825 (transcatheter heart valve). The court considered whether to exercise its discretion under R. 36 RoP to allow additional pleadings in response to new priority-related defence arguments raised in the defendant's rejoinder. |
| 2024-02-27 | UPC_CFI_440/2023 | Paris LD | Generic Order | motionName.jurisdictional | Procedural only | The Paris Local Division refused the defendant Laser Components SAS's request to change the language of proceedings from French to English (the language in which the patent was granted) in Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd v Laser Components SAS. The Court applied R. 322 RoP and Art. 49.4 UPCA, finding that while the plaintiff is Korean and chose French, the defendant is a French company based in France, and neither the representative's nationality nor a forced intervenor's nationality constitutes sufficient grounds of convenience or equity to justify a language change. The request was therefore rejected. |
| 2024-02-26 | UPC_APP_5164/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Application for provisional measures | Procedural | Procedural only | The President of the UPC Court of First Instance ruled on a language-of-proceedings application in the 10x Genomics v Curio Bioscience provisional measures case, deciding whether English (the patent language) or German (the local division language) should govern proceedings. |
| 2024-02-26 | UPC_APP_5164/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Application for provisional measures | Procedural | Procedural only | The President of the UPC Court of First Instance ruled on a language-of-proceedings application in the 10x Genomics v Curio Bioscience provisional measures case, deciding whether English (the patent language) or German (the local division language) should govern proceedings. |
| 2024-02-26 | ORD_10103/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic Order | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal ruled that AIM Sport's appeal (lodged as APL_596892/2023) against a first-instance decision dismissing the actions due to patent opt-out was filed out of the two-month time limit under R.220.1(c) RoP and was therefore inadmissible. |
| 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. |
| 2024-02-24 | UPC_CFI_1/2023 | Munich CD | Revocation Action | Procedural | Procedural only | The Munich Central Division issued a procedural order combining two related revocation actions (Sanofi v Amgen and Regeneron v Amgen) into a single proceeding, admitted additional documents into evidence, rejected a request for an interim conference, and set the value of each action at EUR 100 million. |
| 2024-02-23 | UPC_APP_8500/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Application for provisional measures | Procedural | Procedural only | Published headnotes and keywords document for the 23 February 2024 Düsseldorf Local Division order in Curio Bioscience v. 10x Genomics, setting out the legal principles on trade secret protection under Rule 262A RoP in provisional measures proceedings, including preliminary access restrictions and the right to be heard before a final confidentiality order. |
| 2024-02-23 | UPC_APP_8500/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Application for provisional measures | Procedural | Procedural only | The Düsseldorf Local Division issued a confidentiality protection order under Rule 262A RoP in Curio Bioscience v. 10x Genomics, establishing preliminary access restrictions to allegedly confidential documents and setting out the proportionate circle of persons entitled to access (four legal representatives, two patent attorneys, three client representatives, expandable by two paralegals if needed). |
| 2024-02-23 | UPC_APP_9671/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Application for provisional measures | Procedural | Procedural only | The Düsseldorf Local Division rejected the applicant's (10x Genomics) request to move the deadline for responding to the opposition, holding that the deadline runs from the issuance of the prior procedural order and cannot be shifted to the conclusion of the confidentiality proceedings. |
| 2024-02-23 | UPC_APP_9671/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Application for provisional measures | Procedural | Procedural only | The Düsseldorf Local Division rejected the applicant's (10x Genomics) request to move the deadline for responding to the opposition, holding that the deadline runs from the issuance of the prior procedural order and cannot be shifted to the conclusion of the confidentiality proceedings. |
| 2024-02-22 | ORD_7587/2024 | Mannheim LD | Generic Order | Procedural | Procedural only | The Mannheim Local Division decided, under R. 37.2 and Art. 33(3) UPCA, to hear Panasonic Holdings Corporation's infringement action and OPPO's counterclaims for revocation and FRAND licence together before the same panel, finding joint adjudication efficient and consistent with uniform claim interpretation. |
| 2024-02-22 | UPC_APP_597898/2023 | Mannheim LD | Infringement Action | Procedural | Procedural only | The Mannheim Local Division issued a procedural order in MED-EL v. Advanced Bionics, denying the defendants' application to refer the infringement proceedings to the Central Division and deferring the question of a stay of infringement proceedings pending parallel Central Division revocation proceedings to a later stage, after the full written procedure is complete. |
| 2024-02-22 | ORD_7453/2024 | Mannheim LD | Generic Order | Procedural | Procedural only | The Mannheim Local Division issued a procedural order in the early stages of the Panasonic v. Xiaomi infringement proceedings concerning EP 2 568 724, addressing scheduling and procedural matters. |
| 2024-02-22 | UPC_APP_7580/2024 | Court of Appeal | Application for an Order for expedition of an appeal (RoP225(e)) | motionName.appeal_decision | Dismissed | The UPC Court of Appeal dismissed Netgear's request to expedite the appeal and shorten the respondent's time period for filing a statement of response, finding the request too unspecified and insufficiently substantiated given the interests of Huawei and principles of due process in proceedings challenging a separation order. |
| 2024-02-22 | UPC_APP_7580/2024 | Court of Appeal | Application for an Order for expedition of an appeal (RoP225(e)) | motionName.appeal_decision | Dismissed | Order of the Court of Appeal (Panel 2) rejecting Netgear's application under R. 225(e) / R. 9.3(b) RoP to accelerate the appeal proceedings (against an order bifurcating the case under R. 302.1 RoP in Huawei v Netgear concerning EP 3 678 321). The request was filed on the last day of the time limits for the appeal response, and the court refused to shorten the respondent's (Huawei's) deadline to reply, weighing Huawei's interest in a fair hearing against the risk that the first-instance defence would need to be filed before the appeal outcome. |
| 2024-02-22 | ORD_7452/2024 | Mannheim LD | Generic Order | Procedural | Procedural only | Order of the Mannheim Local Division exercising discretion under Rule 37.2 RoP (Article 33(3) UPCA) to hear the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation (including a FRAND licence counterclaim) together in the same proceedings. The panel decided that joint hearing of the infringement and invalidity claims is efficient and substantively advantageous. |
| 2024-02-22 | ORD_7585/2024 | Mannheim LD | Generic Order | Procedural | Procedural only | Mannheim Local Division order in Panasonic vs Xiaomi infringement proceedings (EP 2 207 270) addressing case management under R. 37.2 RoP read with Art. 33(3) UPCA. The order concerns procedural organisation of the case involving multiple Xiaomi entities and related proceedings. |
| 2024-02-21 | UPC_APP_6926/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Infringement Action | Procedural | Procedural only | The Düsseldorf Local Division issued a procedural order in FUJIFILM v. Kodak GmbH, granting the defendants a retrospective extension of the deadline to file their counterclaim for revocation in the dedicated CMS workflow, on the conditions that a first filing attempt had been made before the deadline and the corrected upload was made without culpable delay. |
| 2024-02-21 | UPC_APP_6926/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Infringement Action | Procedural | Procedural only | Duplicate version of the 21 February 2024 Düsseldorf Local Division procedural order in FUJIFILM v. Kodak, granting a retrospective extension of the CMS workflow deadline for filing the counterclaim for revocation. |
| 2024-02-20 | UPC_APP_8391/2024 | Paris CD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | The Central Division Paris seat granted Roche Diabetes Care GmbH's request for an extension of the time period for filing the defence to revocation in the pending revocation action concerning EP 2 196 231, pending a decision on the preliminary objection to jurisdiction. |
| 2024-02-20 | UPC_APP_8392/2024 | Paris CD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | Order of the Paris Central Division (judge-rapporteur) granting Roche Diabetes Care GmbH's application for extension of the deadline for filing its defence in a non-infringement declaration action brought by Tandem Diabetes Care (EP 2 196 231). Roche had filed a preliminary objection disputing jurisdiction which had not yet been decided; it argued it would be unreasonable to finalise a defence that might become unnecessary. The court extended the deadline to 8 April 2024, finding the extension was justified to await the preliminary objection decision, particularly given the parallel revocation action pending before the same court. |
| 2024-02-19 | UPC_APP_6074/2024 | Munich LD | Infringement Action | Procedural | Procedural only | The Munich Local Division issued a post-hearing order in Huawei v. Netgear following a separate hearing under Rule 334(d) RoP on 19 February 2024, characterising that hearing as a separate hearing and setting out procedural steps regarding the recording and a pending Rule 336 RoP interim decision application. |
| 2024-02-15 | UPC_CoA_2/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic Order | Costs | Procedural only | Procedural order from the Court of Appeal (UPC_CoA_2/2024) on the appeal fee issue in provisional measures proceedings. The appeal concerned a Munich Local Division order declaring the PI application moot after Meril gave an undertaking and cease and desist declaration. The order addressed cost allocation and whether the appeal fee was properly calculated. |
| 2024-02-15 | UPC_CoA_2/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic Order | Costs | Costs only | Procedural order of the Court of Appeal addressing the appeal fee in an appeal by Meril GmbH and Meril Life Sciences against a Munich Local Division order in provisional measures proceedings brought by Edwards Lifesciences Corporation regarding EP 3 763 331 (crimping device for heart valve prostheses). After Meril submitted a cease-and-desist undertaking, Edwards accepted it and the case was resolved without a ruling. The first-instance court ordered Meril to bear costs up to EUR 200,000 and set the action value at EUR 1,500,000. Meril appealed. The Court of Appeal order concerned procedural aspects of the appeal fee payment. |
| 2024-02-15 | UPC_CFI_239/2023 | The Hague LD | Generic Order | Procedural | Procedural only | The Hague Local Division decided to hear both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation jointly (Art. 33(3)(a) UPCA), as both parties agreed and joint hearing was considered expedient for uniform interpretation. |
| 2024-02-14 | UPC_CFI_463/2023 | Dusseldorf LD | Application for provisional measures | Procedural | Procedural only | The Düsseldorf Local Division issued a procedural order in 10x Genomics v. Curio Bioscience establishing a structured confidentiality protection procedure under Rule 262A RoP, clarifying the CMS workflow for trade secret protection and setting out the process for granting preliminary access restrictions before a final confidentiality order is made. |
| 2024-02-14 | UPC_CFI_210/2023 | Mannheim LD | Infringement Action | Procedural | Procedural only | The Mannheim Local Division established a confidentiality regime in the Panasonic v. OPPO infringement proceedings for the production of licence agreements and confidential commercial information under Rules 190/191, 262, and 262A RoP, setting out a structured multi-step process to protect trade secrets while enabling their use in the proceedings. |
| 2024-02-14 | UPC_CFI_210/2023 | Mannheim LD | Infringement Action | Procedural | Procedural only | German-language version of the Mannheim Local Division order establishing a confidentiality regime (Geheimnisschutzregime) in Panasonic v. OPPO, covering the same rules for the protection of licence agreement contents as trade secrets under Rules 190/191, 262, and 262A RoP. |
| 2024-02-13 | UPC_APP_586761/2023 | The Hague LD | Generic application | Costs | Procedural only | The Hague Local Division rejected Arkyne Technologies' (Bioo) application under Rule 158 RoP requiring Plant-e to provide security for legal costs, finding that the financial strain a cautio would impose on the claimant (a competing SME with limited finances) would be a serious impediment to access to justice, and also noting that Dutch national law does not permit security for costs against EU-domiciled claimants. |
| 2024-02-12 | UPC_APP_588685/2023 | Paris LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | The Paris Local Division granted Laser Components SAS's application for forced intervention (joinder) of its LED chip supplier Photon Wave Co. Ltd in the Seoul Viosys v. Laser Components infringement proceedings, finding it useful and necessary for the third party to be bound by the court's decision. |
| 2024-02-12 | UPC_APP_5858/2024 | Paris LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | The Paris Local Division issued a procedural order in ICPillar LLC v. ARM group, granting ICPillar's application for an alternative method of service (Rule 275.1 RoP) on Arm Poland Sp. z.o.o. via French bailiff, after registered letter service had failed, while confirming that service was otherwise successfully effected on the remaining ARM defendants. |
| 2024-02-12 | UPC_APP_5858/2024 | Paris LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | Procedural order from the Paris Local Division (UPC_CFI_495/2023) concerning an alternative method of service under R. 275.1 RoP. The Court addressed the applicant ICPillar's request to serve its Statement of Claim on Arm Poland via a French bailiff and by registered letter. The Court clarified that alternative service is only authorised where service could not otherwise be effected, and that a 10-day delay from sending a registered letter to a Hague Convention Central Authority does not constitute a failure of service. |
| 2024-02-12 | UPC_CFI_114/2024 | Munich LD | Infringement Action | Procedural | Procedural only | The Munich Local Division issued a procedural order in Heraeus v Vibrantz, upholding the claimant's amendment of infringement claims to include indirect infringement of a process claim without requiring court leave, granting other amendments to extend claims to Romania, and allowing substitution of parties in the revocation counterclaim. |
| 2024-02-12 | UPC_CFI_425/2023 | Paris LD | Generic Order | Procedural | Procedural only | The Paris Local Division issued a procedural order extending and aligning time limits for multiple defendants to file their statements of defence in the infringement action brought by Abbott Diabetes Care, following an oral agreement at a case management meeting on a reasonable date. |
| 2024-02-12 | UPC_CFI_395/2023 | Paris LD | Generic Order | Procedural | Procedural only | Procedural order from the Paris Local Division granting an extension and alignment of deadlines for filing the Statement of Defence in an infringement action by DexCom against 14 Abbott group defendants. The parties had orally agreed on a filing date at a case management meeting, which the Judge-Rapporteur considered reasonable. The order also confirmed service completion details for each defendant. |
| 2024-02-09 | UPC_APP_4285/2024 | Paris CD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | Order of the Paris Central Division on an application for extension of the time period to file the statement of defence filed by ITCiCo Spain S.L. The Court considered the application of Rule 9(3) RoP discretionary time extension powers, applying principles of proportionality, flexibility, fairness and equity. A time extension was sought due to illness of the previously appointed patent attorney. |
| 2024-02-09 | UPC_CFI_424/2023 | The Hague LD | Infringement Action | Procedural | Procedural only | The Hague Local Division issued a procedural order in Abbott v. Dexcom, granting Abbott's request to align the statement of defence deadlines for both Dexcom defendants so that both run from the later service date on Dexcom International Limited (20 December 2023), ensuring synchronised pleading schedules. |
| 2024-02-09 | UPC_CFI_9/2023 | Munich LD | Infringement Action | Procedural | Procedural only | The Munich Local Division issued an order under Rule 322 RoP in the Huawei v. Netgear infringement proceedings, deciding that, although German remains the language of proceedings, the oral hearing shall be conducted in English, relying on Rules 1.1 and 14.2(c) RoP to ensure an efficient and fair hearing given the international nature of the case and the parties' agreement. |
| 2024-02-08 | UPC_CoA_404/2023 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal (Second Panel) ruled that a member of the public who requests access to the register under R. 262.1(b) RoP must be represented before the UPC, as such a person is in an adversarial situation that requires representation. The unrepresented respondent's Statement of Response was disregarded, and the respondent was given time to remedy the lack of representation. |
| 2024-02-02 | UPC_CFI_14/2023 | Munich LD | Infringement Action | Procedural | Procedural only | The Munich Local Division issued an order pursuant to Art. 33(3)(b) UPCA, granting all parties' unanimous request to refer the counterclaim for revocation to the Central Division, while deciding to proceed with the infringement proceedings at the Local Division and reserving the possibility to stay the infringement action pending the revocation outcome. |