| 2025-06-27 | ACT_67704/2024 | Munich CD | Revocation Action | Procedural | Procedural only | Procedural order of Munich Central Division (27 June 2025) in a revocation action concerning EP 4 019 790, scheduling an online interim conference via Cisco Webex for case management purposes and setting submission deadlines. |
| 2025-06-26 | APL_36389/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | Dismissed | Court of Appeal (26 June 2025) rejected Ballinno's appeal against (1) the security for costs order of EUR 56,000, and (2) the CFI's cost order. As Ballinno had withdrawn its requests for provisional measures on appeal, the action was declared devoid of purpose and disposed of under R. 360 RoP. Ballinno was ordered to bear the Kinexon companies' and UEFA's legal costs for the appeal proceedings. Value of dispute set at EUR 100,000. |
| 2025-06-23 | APL_14947/2025 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Dismissed | Court of Appeal (Panel with President Grabinski) dismissed Sumi Agro Limited and Sumi Agro Europe Limited's appeal against a Munich Local Division order that had refused to revoke provisional measures granted to Syngenta Limited concerning EP 2 152 073 (a crop protection patent). The appeal concerned the timing of payment of court fees: the Court of Appeal held that fees are considered paid on time when a bank transfer order is given at the time of filing, not when the bank account actually receives the funds. On the merits, the court confirmed the first-instance cost decision. Sumi Agro was ordered to bear the costs of the appeal. |
| 2025-06-20 | UPC_APP_28294/2024 | Munich LD | Preliminary objection | motionName.jurisdictional | Dismissed | The Munich Local Division rejected Motorola's preliminary objection to jurisdiction, holding that the court had jurisdiction under Art. 33(1)(a) UPCA based on alleged infringing acts in Germany, and allowed proceedings to continue. |
| 2025-06-20 | UPC_APP_61580/2024 | Munich LD | Preliminary objection | motionName.jurisdictional | Dismissed | Preliminary objection by Motorola Mobility LLC, Motorola International Sales LLC, Motorola Mobility Germany GmbH and Flextronics International Europe B.V. challenging jurisdiction of Munich Local Division was rejected in Headwater Research LLC v. Motorola entities (EP 3 110 069). The court held: (1) Art. 33(1)(a) UPCA jurisdiction is established by the claimant's credible assertion of infringement in Germany, including delivery of devices; (2) Art. 33(1)(b) sentence 2 UPCA does not narrow the rule for multiple defendants where each infringes in Germany or has seat there; (3) Flextronics as logistics provider for Motorola was plausibly alleged to have participated in infringement, supporting Munich jurisdiction. Appeal not allowed. |
| 2025-06-20 | UPC_APP_30222/2024 | Munich LD | Preliminary objection | motionName.jurisdictional | Procedural only | Munich Local Division dismissed preliminary objections to jurisdiction filed by Motorola Mobility LLC and related entities against Headwater Research LLC's infringement action (UPC_CFI_149/2024). The court upheld jurisdiction under Art. 33(1)(a) UPCA for defendants that committed infringing acts in Germany and are domiciled there, and also upheld jurisdiction under Art. 33(1)(b) UPCA (with a narrower interpretation) over the remaining defendants including Digital River Ireland Ltd. Leave to appeal was not granted. |
| 2025-06-20 | UPC_CoA_393/2025 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | — | Dismissed | The Court of Appeal allowed AorticLab's appeal and set aside the Munich Local Division's order granting Emboline's application for security for costs. The CoA held that Art. 69(4) UPCA provides no legal basis for a security for costs at the request of the claimant in an infringement action in response to a defendant's counterclaim for revocation. Allowing such security would unreasonably restrict the defendant's right to raise an invalidity defence by means of a mandatory counterclaim. |
| 2025-06-19 | UPC_CFI_363/2024 | Paris LD | Generic application | — | Procedural only | Procedural order from the Paris Local Division dated 19 June 2025 dealing with security for costs requested by defendant GISELA MAYER GmbH against claimant N.J DIFFUSION SARL in an infringement action. NJ Diffusion had been placed in judicial reorganization (redressement judiciaire) on 5 June 2025. The court had to deal with: (1) the intervention of the court-appointed administrator and judicial representative; (2) request to provide security for costs under R. 158 RoP; and (3) the oral hearing scheduled for 20 June 2025. The order addresses the effect of insolvency proceedings on pending UPC proceedings under R. 311 RoP. |
| 2025-06-17 | ACT_20004/2024 | Milan LD | Infringement Action | Procedural | Procedural only | The Milan Local Division issued a post-interim-conference order in infringement proceedings between Progress Maschinen & Automation AG and SCHNELL/AWM, deciding on the admissibility of a new auxiliary request, withdrawing certain evidence production requests, and setting the case for oral hearing. |
| 2025-06-17 | ACT_20004/2024 | Milan LD | Infringement Action | Procedural | Procedural only | The Milan Local Division issued a post-interim-conference procedural order in the Progress Maschinen v. AWM/Schnell infringement action, setting the oral hearing schedule and deferring to the panel the admissibility of a new auxiliary patent amendment request. |
| 2025-06-16 | ACT_14764/2025 | Hamburg LD | Application for provisional measures | Preliminary injunction | PI granted | Hamburg Local Division granted a preliminary injunction ordering OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH to cease and desist from manufacturing, offering, placing on the market, using, exporting, or possessing in 18 UPC contracting states an electrolytic medium for electropolishing processes that infringes a patent for such a medium. The court held that validity is established on a balance of probabilities standard (more likely than not valid); the burden for invalidity lies with the defendant. The weighing of interests favoured the applicant as the defendant's product enabled new machine sales creating market opportunities lost to the applicant. The defendant's request for security for enforcement was denied as no sufficient facts (e.g. financial difficulties) were presented. Penalty of up to EUR 250,000 per non-compliance. |
| 2025-06-16 | ACT_14764/2025 | Hamburg LD | Application for provisional measures | Procedural | Procedural only | The Hamburg Local Division (full panel: Klepsch, Schilling, Rinkinen, Goedeweeck) partially granted OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH's application for rectification (R. 353 RoP) of the provisional measures order of 16 June 2025 granted to Steros GPA Innovative S.L. concerning EP 4 249 647. The court corrected clerical mistakes (omitted letters) and certain erroneous references (water-in-oil to oil-in-water emulsion, a missing table reference, and a result table entry). However, the court rejected OTEC's request to alter the description of the 'skilled person' in the art, finding that this went beyond rectification of obvious slips. |
| 2025-06-16 | UPC_CFI_140/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Infringement Action | — | Infringed | Decision of the Düsseldorf Local Division finding that Curio Bioscience infringes EP 2 697 391 B1 owned by 10x Genomics. The court ordered: (A) cessation of the infringing acts in UPC member states; (B) recall from distribution channels; (C) permanent removal from distribution channels; (D) rendering of accounts; (E) damages for acts after 30 November 2019; (F) periodic penalty payments of up to EUR 100,000 per day. The action was dismissed in other respects. Costs: borne 30% by claimant, 70% by defendant. Value in dispute set at EUR 3,000,000; ceiling for recoverable representation costs EUR 400,000. |
| 2025-06-15 | UPC_CFI_26/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Infringement Action | Procedural | Procedural only | Düsseldorf Local Division dismissed Samsung's application for security for costs against Headwater Research LLC under R. 158 RoP. The Court found that while enforcing a cost order against a US-domiciled entity might be more burdensome, the evidence showed Headwater generates recurring revenues from licensing, making the concern about non-recovery insufficiently justified. |
| 2025-06-12 | UPC_CFI_351/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Generic Order | Procedural | Procedural only | Procedural order in Canon v. Katun/General Plastic infringement action. The Düsseldorf Local Division decided under R. 37.2 RoP to proceed jointly with both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation (Art. 33(3)(a) UPCA) for reasons of efficiency, allowing validity and infringement to be decided on a unified factual record. |
| 2025-06-10 | UPC_APP_26391/2025 | Dusseldorf LD | Application for provisional measures | Procedural | Procedural only | The Düsseldorf Local Division granted Aesculap AG's request for simultaneous interpretation at the oral hearing in preliminary injunction proceedings against Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH concerning EP 2 892 442 B1, and permitted video conference participation. |
| 2025-06-06 | UPC_CoA_618/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | — | Costs only | The Court of Appeal ruled on a late application for a costs determination (R. 151 RoP) filed by the Hanshow entities (appellants/applicants at first instance in a costs procedure) arising from failed provisional measures proceedings against SES-imagotag SA. The CoA held that the one-month deadline under R. 151.1 RoP begins from service of the provisional measures order (not the merits decision) when no merits proceedings are initiated, and that a missed deadline can only be remedied by re-establishment of rights (R. 320 RoP). A party that succeeds in costs proceedings must still bear its own costs attributable to those proceedings (except the court fee). |
| 2025-06-06 | UPC_CoA_618/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | — | Dismissed | Court of Appeal rejected Hanshow's appeal against a cost decision. The Court held that an application for a cost decision under R.151 RoP must be lodged within one month of service of the decision. This time period cannot be extended; failure can only be remedied through re-establishment of rights under R.320 RoP. Hanshow's late application for a cost decision was therefore time-barred. |
| 2025-06-06 | UPC_CFI_324/2024 | Munich LD | Infringement Action | — | Patent amended | Infringement action by Tiroler Rohre GmbH (Austria) against SSAB Swedish Steel GmbH and SSAB Europe Oy concerning a driving pile tip device (Rammspitze) and EP 2 839 083 B9. The court found infringement of the patent as amended. It ordered: injunction, recall and destruction of infringing pile tips and moulds, disclosure of information, publication of decision in four trade journals. The invalidity counterclaim against the patent as originally granted was upheld in part (patent amended). Key headnotes: burden of proof for impossibility of infringement lies with defendant; infringement exists even if patented function only occasionally achieved. |
| 2025-06-06 | UPC_CFI_471/2023 | Mannheim LD | Infringement Action | — | Not infringed | The Mannheim Local Division ruled on the infringement action and revocation counterclaim regarding EP 2 479 680 (adaptive bitrate HTTP streaming). The infringement claim was dismissed as the defendants' systems did not literally or equivalently infringe the patent. The revocation counterclaim was dismissed; the patent was maintained in amended form under Auxiliary Request 12. Infringement costs were borne by the claimants; revocation counterclaim costs were borne by the defendants. Each party bore its own representation costs. The dispute value was set at EUR 20,000,000. |
| 2025-06-04 | APL_13146/2025 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal ruled that when adjudicating on a request for imposition of periodic penalty payments pursuant to Rule 354.4 RoP, the composition of the court must be a panel and not a single judge. The impugned order issued by a single judge was set aside in that part. |
| 2025-06-02 | ACT_13227/2024 | Munich LD | Infringement Action | Procedural | Procedural only | The Munich Local Division judge-rapporteur issued an interim conference order (R. 105.5 RoP) in the infringement action by Heraeus against Vibrantz concerning EP 3 215 288. The order recorded directions from the videoconference of 28 May 2025, including guidance on admissibility of the counterclaim for revocation in Germany, limitation of late-filed arguments, and consolidation of claim requests. |
| 2025-06-02 | ACT_1613/2025 | Munich LD | Infringement Action | Procedural | Procedural only | Scheduling order by Munich Local Division (UPC_CFI_18/2025 and UPC_CFI_439/2025, 2 June 2025) setting dates for interim conference (9 January 2026, videoconference) and oral hearing (18 March 2026, Munich) in BioMarin's infringement action against Ascendis Pharma, with counterclaim for revocation. Both proceedings will proceed together; a technically qualified judge will be appointed. |
| 2025-06-02 | APL_8790/2025 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Dismissed | The Court of Appeal dismissed XSYS's appeal against rejection of a preliminary objection challenging the UPC's temporal competence in infringement proceedings brought by Esko-Graphics Imaging GmbH (UPC_CoA_156/2025). The Court established that the UPC has competence over acts of infringement occurring before the entry into force of the UPCA, as Art. 32 UPCA contains no temporal limitation. This does not violate the non-retroactivity principle under Art. 28 VCLT. During the transitional period, UPC and national courts have concurrent competence unless the patent is opted out. The Court also dismissed XSYS's request for a CJEU preliminary reference and for a stay of proceedings. In the case of an opt-out withdrawal, the UPC is competent also for acts occurring between the opt-out and withdrawal dates. |
| 2025-06-02 | APL_8790/2025 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Dismissed | Court of Appeal dismissed XSYS's appeal against the CFI's rejection of a preliminary objection based on alleged lack of UPC jurisdiction for acts predating the UPCA's entry into force. The CoA held that Art.32(1) UPCA has no temporal limitation and that the UPC has jurisdiction from the date of filing of the action, including for alleged infringements occurring before the UPCA came into force. A valid opt-out withdrawal brings the patent back under full UPC jurisdiction for all infringement periods. This is the German-language version of the decision. |
| 2025-06-02 | UPC_CFI_504/2023 | Dusseldorf LD | Application Rop 365 | — | Settled | The court confirmed a partial settlement between the claimants (Roche) and defendants 1 and 2 (Tandem Diabetes Care Inc. and Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V.) pursuant to Rule 365.1 RoP. The details of the settlement are confidential. Proceedings against defendants 3 to 6 continue. Each settling party bears its own costs. |
| 2025-05-30 | APL_68523/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal partially allowed Belkin's appeal and reduced the penalty payment (Zwangsgeld) imposed by the Munich Local Division for non-compliance with a disclosure order to EUR 42,000, while dismissing Philips's cross-appeal regarding disclosure in electronic form, and setting a new costs allocation. |
| 2025-05-30 | APL_68523/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Costs only | The Court of Appeal (Panel 2) ruled on Belkin's appeal and Philips' cross-appeal against the Munich Local Division's order on penalty payments for non-compliance with an information disclosure obligation following the infringement judgment in UPC_CFI_390/2023 (Philips v Belkin, EP patent not specified in excerpt). The CoA modified the first-instance order: a penalty payment of EUR 42,000 was imposed on Belkin for failing to comply with the information disclosure order. The court established key principles on time periods for information disclosure under Art. 67(1) UPCA, the punitive nature of penalty payments even after belated compliance, burden of proof, and the permissibility of paper format for information. Costs were shared proportionally as both parties were partially unsuccessful. |
| 2025-05-30 | UPC_CoA_845/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | — | Procedural only | Rectification order of the Court of Appeal correcting an obvious clerical error in the order of 30 May 2025 (Belkin v Philips, penalty payment proceedings). The phrase 'Local Division Düsseldorf' is replaced by 'Local Division Munich' throughout the operative part. |
| 2025-05-29 | UPC_CFI_202/2024 | Paris CD | Revocation Action | Revocation merits | Patent amended | The Central Division Paris rejected Lindal's revocation action but maintained EP 3 655 346 B1 as amended by the First Auxiliary Request submitted by the patent proprietor (Rocep-Lusol). The court held that the patent lacked industrial application in its original form but could be maintained in amended form. Claimant (Lindal) bears 70% of costs; defendant (Rocep-Lusol) bears 30%. |
| 2025-05-29 | UPC_CFI_202/2024 | Paris CD | Revocation Action | Revocation merits | Patent amended | The Central Division Paris rejected the revocation action filed by Lindal Dispenser GmbH against Rocep-Lusol Holdings Limited in respect of EP 3 655 346 B1 (a pressure pack dispenser). The patent was maintained in amended form as submitted in the First Auxiliary Request on 26 July 2024 (maintained as EP 1 552 399 in amended form). The Court held that an invention contrary to accepted laws of physics lacks industrial application under Art. 57 EPC. Drawings must be used as explanatory aids but cannot be used to extract a characteristic when contradicted by the description. Costs were apportioned 70% to the claimant and 30% to the defendant. The case value was EUR 1.4 million. |
| 2025-05-28 | ACT_23310/2024 | Paris CD | Revocation Action | Revocation merits | Partially revoked | Paris Central Division (28 May 2025) revoked the German national part of EP 3 822 805 B1 on grounds of added matter (Art. 100(c) EPC), as the patent's claim 1 extended beyond the content of the parent application. All auxiliary requests (AR1–AR16) were either refused admission or failed to overcome the invalidity. Costs were awarded against the patent proprietor (DISH Technologies). |
| 2025-05-28 | UPC_CoA_239/2025 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | outcomeName.other | The Court of Appeal revoked the Munich Local Division's order refusing Centripetal's ex parte application to preserve evidence at Palo Alto's Munich branch office and referred the case back to the Local Division. The Court held that the standard of proof for preservation of evidence is lower than for a full infringement action; mere plausibility of infringement suffices. The Court found that Centripetal's digital evidence preservation request was plausible and that the risk of evidence destruction was established. The order was limited in scope to monitoring Palo Alto's Network Security Solution and digital documentation at the Munich premises. |
| 2025-05-28 | UPC_CFI_189/2025 | Mannheim LD | Generic Order | — | Procedural only | The Mannheim Local Division set the preliminary value in dispute at EUR 4,000,000 in Samsung Electronics' 5G SEP infringement action against ZTE entities concerning EP 4 050 804, and ordered Samsung to pay an additional advance on fees of EUR 26,000. The court found the initial estimate of EUR 500,000 greatly underestimated the value given that the action attacked all standard-essential 5G mobile devices of ZTE and had economic bearing on the broader FRAND rate dispute between the parties. |
| 2025-05-27 | UPC_APP_16032/2025 | Hamburg LD | Preliminary objection | motionName.jurisdictional | Procedural only | The Hamburg Local Division rejected the preliminary objection (Einspruch) filed by Epson entities in Dolby International AB's infringement action, finding no substantial doubts about the validity of Dolby's withdrawal of opt-out, and ordering the proceedings to continue with the statement of defence as the next step. |
| 2025-05-27 | UPC_CFI_11/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Generic application | — | Procedural only | The Düsseldorf Local Division issued a rectification order (R. 353 RoP) correcting obvious errors in the operative part of the decision issued on 8 May 2025 in the infringement action by Grundfos Holding A/S against Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd. concerning EP 2 778 423 B1. The corrections addressed typographical cross-referencing errors in the accounting and rendering of accounts obligations. The defendant did not oppose the rectification. |
| 2025-05-26 | UPC_CoA_1/2025 | Court of Appeal | — | Procedural | Injunction denied | The Court of Appeal denied the application by Chainzone Technology (Foshan) Co., Ltd. (intervener/defendant) for suspensive effect of its appeal against the infringement order of the Vienna Local Division (15 January 2025) in proceedings between SWARCO FUTURIT and STRABAG. Chainzone failed to demonstrate manifest errors in the first-instance decision concerning EP 2 643 717 (a colour-mixing convergent optical system). The order confirming the injunction against STRABAG therefore remained enforceable. This is the German language version; an English translation exists (see finalorderuspensiveeffect EN.pdf). Note: the referenced case number in the parties section is UPC_CoA_70/2025 (Strabag appeal) and UPC_CoA_1/2025 (Chainzone appeal). |
| 2025-05-26 | UPC_CoA_1/2025 | Court of Appeal | — | Procedural | Injunction denied | The Court of Appeal denied the application by Chainzone Technology (Foshan) Co., Ltd. for suspensive effect of its appeal against the infringement order of the Vienna Local Division concerning EP 2 643 717 (colour-mixing convergent optical system / LED optics). Chainzone failed to demonstrate that the first-instance decision was manifestly erroneous. The enforcement of the injunction against STRABAG therefore continued. Key headnotes: application for suspensive effect must itself enable the respondent to prepare and the court to decide; suspensive effect requires manifest error in the impugned order; a company director is not an 'intermediary' under Art. 63 UPCA merely by reason of their directorship; security for enforcement under R.352.1 must be ordered at the time of the decision. This is the English translation of finalordersuspensiveeffect.DE_.pdf. |
| 2025-05-23 | UPC_APP_19773/2025 | The Hague LD | Preliminary objection | motionName.jurisdictional | Procedural only | Procedural order of The Hague Local Division in infringement proceedings by Genevant Sciences GmbH and Arbutus Biopharma Corporation against multiple Moderna entities concerning lipid nanoparticle delivery technology. The order addresses preliminary objections and jurisdictional matters concerning certain Moderna entities (Moderna Spain, Moderna Poland, Moderna Norway), examining whether their activities constitute or enable infringement within the UPC territory. |
| 2025-05-23 | ACT_17434/2024 | Paris LD | Infringement Action | Infringement merits | Revoked | Paris Local Division revoked the Dutch, French, German and Italian parts of claims 1-6 of EP 3 155 936 (Hurom slow juicer) as unconditionally amended in the Main Request, and claims 1-3 as amended in the Auxiliary Request, following NUC Electronics' counterclaim for revocation. The patent was found invalid under Art. 138(1) EPC. All of Hurom's infringement claims were dismissed. Hurom's claims for infringement in Poland were held admissible (BSH v Electrolux principle) but dismissed on the merits for lack of evidence. Hurom was ordered to bear all costs. |
| 2025-05-23 | UPC_CFI_191/2025 | The Hague LD | Preliminary objection | — | Procedural only | Procedural order from The Hague Local Division dated 23 May 2025 ruling on a preliminary objection raised by Moderna defendants. The court dismissed Moderna's jurisdictional objections concerning Moderna Spain, Moderna Poland, and Moderna Norway, finding that the UPC has international jurisdiction under Art. 8(1) Brussels I Recast (commercial relationship within the same group) and that the LD The Hague has local competence under Art. 33(1)(b) UPCA because Moderna Netherlands B.V. is domiciled in the Netherlands. An opt-out validity issue was also addressed. The decision allows the infringement proceedings to proceed on the merits. |
| 2025-05-22 | ACT_51553/2024 | Munich CD | Revocation Action | Procedural | Procedural only | The Central Division Munich granted the joint request of Kunststoff KG Nehl and Häfele SE to stay the revocation proceedings concerning EP 3 767 151 to allow settlement negotiations to proceed, cancelling the oral hearing scheduled for June 2025. |
| 2025-05-21 | UPC_CFI_230/2024 | Paris CD | Revocation Action | Procedural | Procedural only | The Central Division Paris issued a rectification order correcting a clerical error in the April 2025 decision that revoked EP 1 994 067 B1 in the Kinexon v Ballinno revocation action, correcting the patent number reference from EP 1 994 067 to EP 1 944 067. |
| 2025-05-19 | UPC_CFI_58/2025 | Munich LD | Application for provisional measures | Procedural | Costs only | Parallel Munich Local Division order to UPC_CFI_59/2025 in a related Dolby v Roku anti-anti-suit injunction application, also declaring the application moot after Roku's voluntary withdrawal, with costs awarded against Roku. |
| 2025-05-19 | UPC_CFI_59/2025 | Munich LD | Application for provisional measures | Preliminary injunction | PI denied | The Munich Local Division found the application for provisional measures by Sun Patent Trust (anti-anti-suit injunction / anti-anti-enforcement injunction against Roku) moot because Roku had already issued a cease-and-desist undertaking after the prior interim order of 28 January 2025; the application was rejected but costs were borne by Roku since it had given cause for the proceedings. |
| 2025-05-15 | ACT_65882/2024 | Munich LD | Infringement Action | Procedural | Procedural only | Munich Local Division scheduling order in Belparts Group N.V.'s infringement action against IMI Hydronic entities concerning EP 3 812 870. The court decided to proceed with both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation (not to bifurcate), and set the interim videoconference for 24 March 2026 and the oral hearing for 18 June 2026. The scheduling takes into account a pending EPO Board of Appeal hearing on 27 November 2025 and a possible Central Division hearing. |
| 2025-05-14 | UPC_CoA_424/2025 | Court of Appeal | Request for a discretionary review (RoP 220.3) | motionName.appeal_decision | Dismissed | The Court of Appeal (Standing Judge Patricia Rombach) dismissed Hisense, TCL, and LG's request for discretionary review (R. 220.3 RoP) and application for suspensive effect in the Corning v. Hisense/TCL/LG infringement proceedings (EP 3 296 274) before the Mannheim Local Division. The Court upheld the judge-rapporteur's refusal to separate proceedings for the competing defendant groups. Separation of proceedings is not required to protect confidential supply chain information; R. 262A RoP confidentiality orders offer an adequate alternative. The applications for suspensive effect were dismissed. |
| 2025-05-14 | UPC_CFI_132/2024 | Mannheim LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | Procedural order in infringement action by TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR against Texas Instruments entities. Decision on Claimant's request for a further written submission under Rules 12.5 and 36 RoP in response to Defendants' rejoinder: final decision partially postponed to the oral hearing; request otherwise rejected. The court found no new arguments by Defendants requiring a response beyond what was already permitted. |
| 2025-05-13 | ACT_597355/2023 | Dusseldorf LD | Infringement Action | Infringement merits | Not infringed | The Düsseldorf Local Division dismissed Sanofi and Regeneron's infringement action and Amgen's counterclaim for revocation concerning EP3536712 (a second medical use patent for evolocumab in paediatric patients), finding no infringement of the second medical use claim and that the counterclaim for revocation was also unfounded, with each side bearing the costs of the proceedings they lost. |
| 2025-05-09 | UPC_CFI_241/2023 | Milan LD | Generic Order | Costs | Costs only | The Milan Local Division issued a costs decision pursuant to Rule 156 RoP following a prior merits judgment (ORD_598484/2023) in favour of Oerlikon Textile against Bhagat Textile Engineers for infringement of EP 2 145 848. The court awarded Oerlikon EUR 80,000 in recoverable representation costs (EUR 65,000 for the main action and EUR 15,000 for the preservation of evidence proceedings), reduced from the claimed EUR 120,425.28, on the basis that the case was relatively straightforward with no validity or infringement dispute by the defendant. |