| 2024-08-22 | UPC_CoA_364/2024 | Court of Appeal | Petition for review of Registrar's decision | motionName.registrar_review | Procedural only | Order of the President of the Court of Appeal on a petition for review of the Registrar's decision refusing registration of an applicant in the list of UPC representatives. The applicant (anonymized) argued he met the requirements of Art. 48(2) UPCA as a European patent attorney and German patent attorney (Patentanwalt). The dispute centred on whether his training in the 1997-1998 'Munich Year' (Münchner Jahr) was equivalent to the 'Law for Patent Attorneys' course at FernUniversität Hagen required under the transitional provisions of the EPLC Rules. The President of the Court of Appeal reviewed the Registrar's two refusal decisions. |
| 2024-08-22 | UPC_CoA_364/2024 | Court of Appeal | Petition for review of Registrar's decision | motionName.registrar_review | Dismissed | The President of the Court of Appeal dismissed the petition for review of the Registrar's decision refusing to enter the applicant (anonymised) on the list of UPC representatives under Art. 48(2) UPCA. The applicant held a DPMA 'Patentassessor' qualification and claimed his 'Munich Year' training was equivalent to the FernUniversität Hagen 'Law for Patent Attorneys' course listed in Rule 12.1(a)(ii) EPLC Rules. The President found no evidence that the curriculum and examination requirements were identical, and rejected the equivalence argument. |
| 2024-08-21 | APL_45142/2024 | Court of Appeal | Request for a discretionary review (RoP 220.3) | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal dismissed AYLO's request for discretionary review of the Mannheim Local Division's confidentiality order, which had admitted three DISH/Sling-designated persons to the confidentiality club regarding protected business information. |
| 2024-08-21 | UPC_CoA_454/2024 | Court of Appeal | Request for a discretionary review (RoP 220.3) | — | Dismissed | Court of Appeal held that Microsoft's appeal against an order denying its R.361 RoP request (manifestly inadmissible application) was inadmissible because the impugned order was a case management order issued by a single judge-rapporteur rather than a panel. An appeal from a case management order is only admissible if the order was issued by a panel. The request for discretionary review was dismissed. |
| 2024-08-21 | UPC_CoA_354/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | — | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal Panel 2 issued a procedural order summoning parties to an oral hearing by video conference (23 August 2024) in the appeal by Apple entities against the Düsseldorf Local Division's refusal to change the language of proceedings to the patent grant language in the Ona Patents infringement action concerning EP 2 263 098. The order also addressed Apple's application for further written pleadings (R. 9 RoP) and Ona Patents' request to disregard that reply (R. 36 RoP). |
| 2024-08-19 | UPC_CoA_388/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic Order | — | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal partially granted Sibio's request for suspensive effect of their appeal, specifically to the extent that the first-instance provisional measures order erroneously covered Ireland (which had not ratified the UPCA and therefore was not a Contracting Member State). The erroneous extension to Ireland was identified as a manifest error. |
| 2024-08-06 | APL_21602/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | Order from the Court of Appeal (UPC_CoA_183/2024) addressing service of a Statement of Claim on defendants based in China and Taiwan. The Court held that a group company in a Contracting Member State cannot automatically be used to serve Chinese or Taiwanese parent companies; Hague Convention procedures must normally be attempted first for China, and diplomatic/consular channels for Taiwan, before alternative methods are permitted. |
| 2024-08-06 | APL_24585/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Dismissed | Court of Appeal upheld Hamburg Local Division's refusal to allow service of a statement of claim on Chinese Xiaomi entities (Xiaomi Communications Co. Ltd. and Xiaomi Inc.) via their German/Dutch group companies in Nera Innovations Ltd. v. Xiaomi entities (EP 2 642 632). The court held: (1) service on a Chinese-domiciled defendant cannot be made via a group company in a contracting member state without more, because the corporate separation principle applies; (2) service must first be attempted via the Hague Service Convention (R. 274.1(a)(ii) RoP); (3) alternative service (R. 274.1(b), R. 275 RoP) is available only after Hague Convention attempts. |
| 2024-08-06 | APL_10370/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal (Panel 2) ruled on service of the statement of claim on Xiaomi defendants in China and Hong Kong in Panasonic Holdings Corporation v Xiaomi (UPC_CoA_86/2024, EP 2 207 270). The Court held that service on a Chinese or HK group company cannot automatically be effected through a related group company in a Contracting Member State — such a company cannot be treated as the registered office, head office, or principal place of business, nor as a permanent or temporary business establishment under R. 271.5(a) RoP. Service attempts in China via the Hague Service Convention must normally be made before alternative service methods or alternative locations under R. 275 RoP are permitted. |
| 2024-08-06 | UPC_CoA_205/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | — | Procedural only | Court of Appeal ruled on service of statement of claim on Chinese defendants. Held that a defendant company in China cannot, as a starting point, be served via a group company in a Contracting Member State. Attempts to serve via the Hague Convention must normally be made before alternative service methods are permitted. The appeal concerning service procedure was decided on its merits; no ruling on infringement. |
| 2024-08-06 | UPC_CoA_86/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | — | Procedural only | Court of Appeal ruled on service of statement of claim on defendants in China and Hong Kong. Held that Chinese and Hong Kong defendants cannot be served via group companies in Contracting Member States. Service via the Hague Convention must normally be attempted first before alternative methods under R.275 RoP are permitted. No ruling on infringement merits. |
| 2024-07-30 | UPC_CoA_402/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | — | Procedural only | Procedural order from the Court of Appeal dated 30 July 2024 rejecting Alexion Pharmaceuticals' request for expedition of its appeal against the Hamburg Local Division's dismissal of its preliminary injunction application against Samsung Bioepis NL B.V. The CoA found the circumstances were not sufficiently urgent to outweigh Samsung's interest in the standard 15-day response period, noting that the appeal concerned a purely legal issue was insufficient justification, and that Alexion had not used the full time period available to it. |
| 2024-07-29 | UPC_CoA_69/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Dismissed | Court of Appeal rejected NEC's appeal against the Munich Local Division's refusal to permit service on Chinese and Hong Kong TCL companies by email or by public notice. The CoA held that: (1) service by email to a person not authorised to accept service is invalid; (2) public service at a UPC Local Division is not yet permissible at that stage; (3) attempts at service via the Hague Convention must normally be exhausted before alternative methods are permitted. NEC's appeal was rejected. |
| 2024-07-23 | APL_20002/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | Order from the Court of Appeal (UPC_CoA_177/2024) on the disclosure of evidence obtained in preservation/inspection proceedings under Art. 60 UPCA. The Court held that an application for preservation of evidence necessarily implies a right to have the outcome disclosed to the applicant, but this right is not unconditional — the opposing party must be heard before disclosure, especially where the evidence may contain confidential information. The Court remanded the matter to ensure AWM and Schnell were given the opportunity to make a confidentiality request before Progress received the expert report. |
| 2024-07-07 | UPC_CoA_301/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | — | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal Panel 2 issued a procedural order in the appeal by ICPillar LLC against an ARM-group request for security for costs (R. 158 RoP) granted by the Paris Local Division. The order addressed a technical problem with CMS notification and ICPillar's R. 262A confidentiality application submitted alongside its statement of appeal, dealing with service and procedural steps only. |
| 2024-06-21 | UPC_CoA_227/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | — | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal ruled on Mala Technologies Ltd.'s appeal against the Paris Central Division's order on a preliminary objection, and its associated request to stay first-instance proceedings pending appeal. The CoA held that a request to stay first-instance proceedings under R. 21.2 RoP must be 'reasoned' in the written statement; submissions first made at an interim conference cannot substitute for that written reasoning. Mala's request to stay was accordingly rejected. The order also summoned the parties to an oral hearing by videoconference. |
| 2024-06-20 | UPC_CoA_234/2024 | Court of Appeal | Application RoP262A | — | Procedural only | Court of Appeal ruled that a confidentiality order (R.262A RoP) issued by the Court of First Instance continues to apply in appeal proceedings without the need for a new order. The Registry was instructed to grant access to unredacted statements only to persons named in the original CFI confidentiality order. |
| 2024-06-20 | UPC_CoA_234/2024 | Court of Appeal | Application RoP262A | — | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal ruled that a non-appealed confidentiality order (Rule 262A RoP) made by the Court of First Instance continues to apply in appeal proceedings. No new Rule 262A order is required where the same already-protected information appears in another document lodged in the appeal. |
| 2024-06-17 | UPC_CoA_221/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | — | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal ruled on Audi AG's request to file additional written pleadings (R. 36 RoP) in an appeal against a first-instance order denying Audi's application for security for costs (R. 158 RoP) in infringement proceedings brought against it by Network System Technologies LLC. The CoA held that R. 101-110 apply mutatis mutandis in appeal proceedings, and that R. 35 and R. 36 are therefore applicable on appeal. The Court granted Audi's request to submit a brief reply to correct facts stated by NST in its response. |
| 2024-06-04 | APL_9578/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Dismissed | Court of Appeal (4 June 2024) rejected Neo Wireless's appeal and confirmed that the opt-out filed by Neo Wireless LLC (USA) for all EPC states was invalid because it was not filed on behalf of all proprietors of all national parts of the patent (Neo Wireless GmbH & Co. KG held the German part). Art. 83(3) UPCA requires all proprietors of all national parts to lodge or authorise an opt-out. |
| 2024-05-28 | APL_3507/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | Order from the Court of Appeal (UPC_CoA_22/2024) dismissing Carrier Corporation's appeal against the Court of First Instance's refusal to stay revocation proceedings pending EPO opposition proceedings concerning BITZER Electronics' patent. The Court laid down key principles: UPC will generally not stay proceedings; the mere existence of parallel EPO opposition proceedings is insufficient to justify a stay; and a stay is only justified where a rapid EPO decision may be expected (R. 295(a) RoP). No rapid EPO decision was expected in this case, as the UPC hearing was scheduled for June 2024 and the EPO oral hearing for October 2024. |
| 2024-05-22 | UPC_APP_27157/2024 | Court of Appeal | Application for an Order for expedition of an appeal (RoP225(e)) | motionName.appeal_decision | Dismissed | The Court of Appeal rejected Texas Instruments' request to expedite appeal proceedings against a Munich Local Division order that had dismissed their application for security for costs, finding the request too unspecified and insufficiently substantiated. |
| 2024-05-22 | UPC_APP_27159/2024 | Court of Appeal | Application for an Order for expedition of an appeal (RoP225(e)) | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | Court of Appeal rejected Texas Instruments' application for expedition of an appeal (Rule 225(e) and Rule 9.3(b) RoP) in UPC_CoA_225/2024, an appeal against a first-instance order dismissing security for costs applications. Texas Instruments failed to explain why there was a particular interest in shortening NST's 15-day response deadline, and the further request to shorten all future deadlines was too unspecified. |
| 2024-05-22 | UPC_CoA_220/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | — | Dismissed | Court of Appeal denied Volkswagen's request for expedition of the appeal (R.225(e) and R.9.3(b) RoP) against a first-instance order refusing security for costs. The Court held that the request was too unspecified and insufficiently substantiated to justify shortening future time periods at this stage of proceedings. |
| 2024-05-22 | UPC_CoA_221/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | — | Procedural only | Court of Appeal denied Audi's request to expedite the appeal and shorten deadlines (Rule 225(e), Rule 9.3(b) RoP) in its appeal against the dismissal of its security for costs application. The request was denied as too unspecified and insufficiently substantiated. |
| 2024-05-22 | UPC_CoA_224/2024 | Court of Appeal | Application for an Order for expedition of an appeal (RoP225(e)) | — | Dismissed | Court of Appeal denied Texas Instruments' request for expedition of the appeal (R.225(e) and R.9.3(b) RoP) against a first-instance order refusing security for costs. The request was too unspecified and insufficiently substantiated to justify shortening deadlines at this stage. |
| 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. |
| 2024-04-17 | APL_12116/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | The UPC Court of Appeal upheld the President of the Court of First Instance's refusal to change the language of proceedings from German to English in 10x Genomics' provisional measures application against Curio Bioscience concerning EP2697391, finding that the interests of the parties were balanced and the defendant's position was the decisive factor. |
| 2024-04-17 | APL_12116/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | Court of Appeal set aside the President of the CFI's order refusing to change the language of proceedings from German to English in the provisional measures case before the Düsseldorf Local Division. The CoA held that, considering all relevant circumstances (Curio Bioscience is a US company with no connection to Germany, the patent was granted in English, the technology field predominantly uses English), the language of proceedings shall be English. The impugned order of 26 February 2024 was set aside and the language changed to English. |
| 2024-04-10 | UPC_CoA_404/2023 | Court of Appeal | Generic Order | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | Decision of the Court of Appeal dated 10 April 2024 concerning a request by a member of the public for access to written pleadings and evidence under R. 262.1(b) RoP in the Ocado v. Autostore proceedings. The CoA ruled on the composition of its panel (no technically qualified judges required for purely non-technical matters under Art. 9(1) UPCA), on the standard for public access requests (balancing public interest, confidentiality and personal data protection), and distinguished R. 262.1(b) requests from R. 262.3 applications. The order deals with procedural matters of public register access; no substantive patent ruling was made. |
| 2024-04-03 | APL_588422/2023 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal rejected Juul Labs International Inc.'s appeal against first-instance orders allowing NJOY Netherlands B.V. to rectify the name of a party (Juul Labs Inc. to Juul Labs International Inc.) in five sets of revocation proceedings, and held that no costs order would be issued on appeal since the appeal was not a final decision concluding the action. |
| 2024-04-03 | APL_588423/2023 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | Order by the Court of Appeal (Panel 1a, 3 April 2024) in five consolidated appeals (UPC_CoA_433-438/2023) upholding first-instance orders allowing NJOY Netherlands B.V. to rectify the name of the defendant in five revocation actions from Juul Labs, Inc. to Juul Labs International, Inc. (the registered patent proprietor). The CoA also clarified that costs are not awarded at appellate stage when the CoA decision does not conclude the action (R. 242.1 RoP). |
| 2024-04-03 | APL_588426/2023 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Dismissed | Court of Appeal order rejecting Juul Labs International's appeal against the Court of First Instance order allowing rectification of the defendant's name in five revocation actions filed by NJOY Netherlands B.V. (originally naming Juul Labs, Inc. instead of registered proprietor Juul Labs International, Inc.). The Court of Appeal held the rectification was permissible since the appellant was not unreasonably prejudiced. No costs order was made in this interlocutory appeal, to be deferred to the final merits decision. Appeal rejected. |
| 2024-04-03 | APL_588420/2023 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Dismissed | Court of Appeal dismissed Juul Labs International Inc.'s appeal against five first-instance orders allowing NJOY Netherlands B.V. to rectify the incorrectly stated defendant name in five revocation actions (EP 3 498 115, EP 3 504 990, EP 3 504 989, EP 3 504 991, EP 3 430 921). The court held that despite the naming error, it should have been clear to the appellant that the actions were directed against it as the registered proprietor. No cost order was made as the appeal did not conclude the revocation actions. |
| 2024-04-03 | UPC_CoA_437/2023 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | — | Dismissed | The Court of Appeal (Panel 1a) dismissed the appeal by Juul Labs International Inc. against the Paris Central Division's order rectifying the party name in five revocation actions brought by NJOY Netherlands B.V. The CoA held that despite the incorrect original naming of Juul Labs Inc. (instead of Juul Labs International Inc., the registered patent proprietor), the appellant should have known the actions were directed against it, and the rectification did not cause unreasonable prejudice. No costs order was made in the appeal as it did not constitute a final decision concluding the actions. |
| 2024-03-21 | APL_595643/2023 | Court of Appeal | Request for a discretionary review (RoP 220.3) | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal, on a request for discretionary review (R.220.3 RoP), ruled on the correct sequence of procedural remedies against decisions of the judge-rapporteur on preliminary objections, clarifying the relationship between panel review (R.333.1 RoP) and appeal. The review request was addressed on its merits under applicable procedural rules. |
| 2024-03-21 | UPC_CoA_486/2023 | Court of Appeal | Request for a discretionary review (RoP 220.3) | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | Order of the Court of Appeal (Panel 2) on a request for discretionary review under Rule 220.3 RoP. The appeal arose from a preliminary objection ruling in Huawei v. Netgear. The Court of Appeal laid down important procedural headnotes: (1) case management decisions of the judge-rapporteur cannot be directly appealed but must first be reviewed by the panel under Rule 333.1 RoP; (2) the judge-rapporteur's decision to deal with the preliminary objection in the main proceedings is such a case management decision; (3) rejection of a preliminary objection may be appealed with leave under Rule 220.2 RoP, optionally bypassing the panel review. The Court addressed the admissibility and scope of discretionary review. |
| 2024-03-11 | APL_4881/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal partially upheld Netgear's appeal against the Munich Local Division's order concerning deadlines following Huawei's extension of its infringement action to a second patent, setting the new time limit for Netgear's statement of defence (and any counterclaim for revocation) to 18 April 2024 instead of 11 March 2024, on the basis that due process requires defendants to receive the same full response period as for a new action. |
| 2024-03-11 | APL_4881/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | Order from the Court of Appeal (UPC_CoA_36/2024) on Netgear's appeal against the Munich Local Division's order permitting Huawei to expand its infringement action to add EP 3 678 321 alongside EP 3 611 989. The appeal was withdrawn during the interim conference after Huawei agreed to grant Netgear a three-month response period from the original first-instance panel order. The Court ruled on the principle that when a new patent is added by way of case expansion, the defendant must receive the same response period as if a new action had been filed. |
| 2024-03-11 | APL_5395/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal (second panel) set aside the Munich Local Division's order separating the action based on EP 3 678 321 and established that when a new patent is added to pending proceedings under R. 263 RoP, the defendant must receive the same response time as for a new action. |
| 2024-03-11 | APL_5395/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | Court of Appeal procedural order on an appeal against a first-instance order that had severed an amended/expanded infringement claim relating to EP 3678321 from the main action. The appeal concerned the deadline for filing a statement of defence following an amendment of the claim (R. 263 RoP). The Court of Appeal held that, as a matter of due process, when a new patent is added by way of an amended claim, the defendant must be given the same period to respond as would apply if a fresh action had been filed. |
| 2024-03-11 | UPC_CoA_335/2023 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | PI denied | Order of the Court of Appeal revoking the Munich Local Division's provisional measures order in favour of NanoString Technologies Inc. and NanoString Technologies Germany GmbH and NanoString Technologies Netherlands B.V. against President and Fellows of Harvard College and 10x Genomics, Inc. concerning EP 4 108 782 (multiplex in situ detection). The Court of Appeal found that the balance of probabilities indicated the patent was likely invalid (lack of inventive step) given prior art D6, such that a sufficient degree of certainty under Rule 211.2 RoP was lacking. Applicants bear costs. The order sets out important principles on patent claim interpretation, claim scope, and the standard for granting provisional measures. |
| 2024-03-11 | UPC_CoA_335/2023 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | PI denied | Court of Appeal rectification order correcting a slip in Headnote 2 of the 26 February 2024 order. The corrected headnote confirms that the patent claim is the decisive basis (not merely a starting point) for determining the scope of protection under Art. 69 EPC; the provisional measures application against NanoString was ultimately denied by the CoA as the patent was more likely than not invalid. |
| 2024-03-11 | UPC_CoA_335/2023 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | PI denied | Court of Appeal order (26 February 2024, German language version) denying provisional measures against NanoString. The CoA held that the patent was more likely than not invalid, laid down principles on patent claim interpretation under Art. 69 EPC, burden of proof in provisional measure proceedings, and formal requirements under R. 206 RoP. |
| 2024-03-11 | UPC_CoA_335/2023 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | PI denied | German-language rectification order (11 March 2024) correcting a slip in Headnote 2 of the CoA's 26 February 2024 provisional measures order, with corrected formulation of the patent claim interpretation principles under Art. 69 EPC. |
| 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. |
| 2024-02-15 | 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. |