| 2026-03-16 | UPC_CoA_3/2026 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | Dismissed | The Court of Appeal dismissed Ecovacs' appeal against the Düsseldorf Local Division's refusal to grant an ex parte order for inspection and preservation of evidence (R. 197 RoP) regarding Roborock vacuum cleaners at the IFA 2025 exhibition. The Court held that Ecovacs had breached its duty of candour under R. 192.3 RoP by omitting and distorting material facts (including proportionality-relevant information) in its ex parte application, and that such omissions cannot be cured by later submissions. The appeal was therefore rejected and Ecovacs ordered to bear Roborock's appeal costs. |
| 2026-02-17 | UPC_CoA_937/2025 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal (judge-rapporteur Bart van den Broek) rejected the bioMérieux companies' request to stay the UPC revocation appeal proceedings pending EPO opposition proceedings concerning EP 3 756 767. The court found no exceptional circumstances justifying a stay, holding that UPC and EPO decisions on patent validity are not irreconcilable and that EPO developments can be factored into the appeal later. The court also rejected the request for extension of the deadline for the Statement of Grounds of Appeal, finding more efficient means (such as hearing appeals together under R. 220.5 RoP) available. |
| 2026-02-03 | UPC_CoA_8/2025 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | Procedural | Settled | Following the conclusion of appeal proceedings and a settlement agreement between Oerlikon Textile GmbH & Co KG and Bhagat Textile Engineers on payment of procedural costs (arising from the infringement judgment UPC_CFI_241/2023 and the appeal UPC_CoA_8/2025 decision of 9 December 2025), the Court of Appeal ordered the release and transfer to Oerlikon of the EUR 19,000 security deposit provided by Bhagat pursuant to the security for costs order of 30 October 2025. Bhagat consented to the transfer. |
| 2026-02-03 | UPC_CoA_8/2025 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | Procedural | Settled | Italian-language version of the Court of Appeal order (Emmanuel Gougé) ordering the release and transfer to Oerlikon of EUR 19,000 security deposit provided by Bhagat, following settlement of cost payment obligations in the infringement and appeal proceedings concerning EP 2 145 848. Identical substance to the English version. |
| 2025-12-09 | UPC_CoA_8/2025 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | outcomeName.other | Court of Appeal decision on damages and costs in appeal by Bhagat Textile Engineers against the first-instance infringement decision (EP 2 145 848). The CoA confirmed that Bhagat was at least negligent (Art. 68(1) UPCA) having exhibited the infringing product at ITMA 2023 without checking the patent landscape. Oerlikon's claims for moral/reputational prejudice were rejected as insufficiently substantiated. The CoA upheld the CFI's cost allocation (Bhagat to bear 80% of first-instance costs). The CoA determined the damages quantum. |
| 2025-12-02 | UPC_CoA_894/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 223 | Procedural | Procedural only | Order of the Court of Appeal single judge on Windhager Handelsgesellschaft's application for suspensive effect (Rule 223 RoP) of its appeal against the Mannheim Local Division judgment largely upholding bellissa HAAS GmbH's infringement action for EP 2 223 589 and rejecting Windhager's revocation counterclaim. Windhager alleged obvious errors in the first-instance assessment of direct infringement and the rejection of the revocation counterclaim. The order addressed the admissibility of the application (corrected after formality defects) and the substantive criteria for granting suspensive effect. |
| 2025-10-30 | UPC_CoA_8/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application For Costs | Costs | Costs only | The Court of Appeal (Panel 1b: Grabinski, Gougé, Germano, Checcacci, Wilhelm) ordered Bhagat Textile Engineers to provide security for costs of EUR 19,000 (50% of the applicable ceiling) within 10 days in the appeal against the Milan Local Division's infringement judgment concerning EP 2 145 848. The court rejected Oerlikon's request for security regarding first-instance costs already awarded (as those are a matter of enforcement). Security was justified by Bhagat's financial difficulties, the non-enforceability of UPC orders in India, and Bhagat's explicit acknowledgment that it cannot pay the first-instance costs. |
| 2025-10-30 | UPC_CoA_8/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application For Costs | Costs | Costs only | Italian-language version of the Court of Appeal order (Panel 1b) ordering Bhagat Textile Engineers to provide security for costs of EUR 19,000 in the appeal concerning EP 2 145 848. Identical substance to the English version: security ordered based on Bhagat's financial difficulties and non-enforceability of UPC orders in India. Request for security covering first-instance costs rejected. |
| 2024-10-04 | UPC_CoA_2/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Costs only | Order from the Court of Appeal dated 4 October 2024 on costs following Meril's submission of an undertaking (Unterlassungs- und Verpflichtungserklärung) to Edwards Lifesciences, which resulted in dismissal of the preliminary injunction action. The CoA held that, where a defendant undertakes to comply with the claimant's requests after proceedings have commenced, the claimant is generally to be regarded as the prevailing party under Art. 69(1) UPCA, without any need to examine the merits at the time of the undertaking. The undertaking itself implies that the claimant's requests were satisfied. Accordingly, Meril was ordered to bear the costs of proceedings. |
| 2024-10-04 | UPC_CoA_2/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Costs only | The Court of Appeal dismissed Meril's appeal against the Munich Local Division's costs order following a cease-and-desist undertaking by Meril. The Court held that Edwards was the successful party because Meril's cease-and-desist undertaking fulfilled the substance of Edwards' requests after proceedings commenced. Where a defendant gives a cease-and-desist undertaking during proceedings, the claimant is generally the successful party for costs purposes, and there is no need to examine admissibility and merits at the time of the undertaking. |
| 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. |