Decisions
| Date | Case | Division | Action | Motion | Outcome | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-11-27 | UPC_CoA_70/2025 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | Withdrawn | Court of Appeal accepted withdrawal of STRABAG's appeal (UPC_CoA_70/2025) following an out-of-court settlement between STRABAG and SWARCO. The intervenor Chainzone's separate appeal (PC_CoA_001/2025) was declared moot under R.360 RoP, as an intervenor cannot continue an appeal that the supported party has withdrawn. Chainzone bears its own costs. |
| 2025-08-01 | UPC_CoA_70/2025 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | Court of Appeal ruled on confidentiality and access restriction requests in the STRABAG vs. SWARCO appeal proceedings. The Court clarified that access and use restrictions for information against a party and its representatives can only be ordered under R.262A RoP. A late application in appeal for restrictions on information filed in first-instance proceedings is inadmissible. The Court imposed confidentiality obligations on Swarco regarding Chainzone's product characteristics. |
| 2024-09-03 | UPC_CoA_188/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | — | Procedural only | Order of the Court of Appeal dated 3 September 2024 on AYLO entities' appeal against the Mannheim Local Division's rejection of their preliminary objections in infringement proceedings brought by DISH Technologies and Sling TV regarding EP 2 479 956. The CoA dismissed AYLO's appeal and upheld the CFI's rulings on: (1) international jurisdiction of the UPC (Art. 7(2) Brussels I in conjunction with Art. 71b(1)) – jurisdiction exists if the patent has effect in at least one Contracting Member State and alleged internet-accessible services can cause damage there; (2) competence of the Mannheim Local Division; (3) rejection of the parallel national proceedings argument under Art. 30(2) Brussels I; and (4) confirmation that the list of preliminary objections under R. 19.1 RoP is exhaustive – abuse of process and manifest inadmissibility are not recognised as unwritten preliminary objections. |
| 2024-09-03 | UPC_CoA_188/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | — | Dismissed | The Court of Appeal dismissed AYLO's appeal against the Munich Local Division's rejection of AYLO's preliminary objection challenging UPC jurisdiction and competence. The Court of Appeal upheld UPC jurisdiction under Art. 7(2) Brussels I recast and Art. 71b(1) in conjunction with Art. 33(1)(a) UPCA, holding that jurisdiction exists where a European patent has effect in at least one Contracting Member State and alleged damage may occur there (including via internet access). The list of preliminary objections in R. 19.1 RoP is exhaustive; defences based on abusive procedural conduct and manifest lack of foundation are not admissible as preliminary objections. |
| 2024-05-13 | APL_8/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | PI denied | Order by the Court of Appeal (UPC_CoA_1/2024, 13 May 2024) dismissing VusionGroup SA's (formerly SES-imagotag) appeal against the first-instance refusal of a preliminary injunction based on unitary patent EP 3 883 277 (electronic shelf labels). The CoA found that Hanshow's products do not fall within claim 1 because the antenna is not positioned further towards the front face than the circuit board as required; VusionGroup was ordered to bear costs. |
| 2024-05-13 | UPC_CoA_1/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | — | PI denied | Order of the Court of Appeal (Panel 1, with technical judges) dismissing the appeal by VusionGroup SA (formerly SES-imagotag SA) against the Munich Local Division's rejection of its application for provisional measures against Hanshow Technology and related entities regarding electronic shelf labels. The Court of Appeal, applying a balance-of-probabilities standard, found that none of Hanshow's contested products fell within the scope of protection of claim 1 of EP 3 883 277, because the antenna was not positioned more to the front of the label than the printed circuit board as required by the claim. The court held that claim features must always be interpreted in light of the claim as a whole. The appeal was rejected and the appellant was ordered to bear the costs of appeal. |