| 2025-06-13 | UPC_APP_25818/2025 | Munich CD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | Munich Central Division (13 June 2025) admitted late-filed pleadings (including new added matter arguments and a Swedish Patent Office consulting report) submitted by TCL in the revocation action against Corning's EP 3 296 274, following a party agreement, and extended the deadline for Corning's Defence to Revocation by two weeks. |
| 2025-06-12 | UPC_APP_27016/2025 | The Hague LD | Application Rop 333 | Procedural | Procedural only | The Hague Local Division issued a procedural order on a R. 333 RoP application by various Moderna entities (defendants) regarding service and deadlines for filing the Statement of Defence in infringement proceedings brought by Arbutus Biopharma and Genevant Sciences. The court denied requests to stay service or extend deadlines for individual defendants not yet formally served, while setting a single consolidated deadline for all Moderna group defendants to file one joint Statement of Defence. |
| 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. |
| 2025-06-09 | ORD_27305/2025 | Paris CD | Generic Order | Procedural | Procedural only | Order of the Central Division (Paris Seat) on an application by Meissner Bolte law firm for access to written pleadings and evidence filed in revocation proceedings (ACT_571669/2023) between NJOY Netherlands B.V. and Juul Labs International, Inc. concerning EP 3 498 115. The Court granted the access request under Rule 262.1(b) RoP, finding that once first-instance proceedings have ended, the general public interest in understanding the decision outweighs confidentiality concerns. |
| 2025-06-06 | UPC_APP_20490/2025 | Mannheim LD | Amend Document | Procedural | Procedural only | The Local Division Mannheim granted Sunstar Engineering Europe leave under R.263 RoP to amend its damages claim to include profits from consumables (sealing material) and service/maintenance contracts related to allegedly infringing CeraFLOW dispensing machines, finding this a clarifying rather than substantively new claim. |
| 2025-06-06 | UPC_APP_22065/2025 | Mannheim LD | Amend Document | Procedural | Procedural only | Mannheim Local Division procedural order granting CeraCon GmbH's application under R. 263 RoP to amend its counterclaim for revocation by introducing a new novelty attack based on prior art document EP 3 868 480 (WO 2021/131055, a PCT/JP2019/051559 family member) against Sunstar Engineering's patent EP 4 108 413. The court found the amendment admissible: CeraCon could not reasonably have discovered the document earlier (only found via a search commissioned in late March 2025), and the amendment does not unduly prejudice Sunstar. The oral hearing remains scheduled for 10 February 2026. |
| 2025-06-06 | UPC_APP_23407/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 223 | Procedural | Procedural only | Procedural order from the Court of Appeal (UPC_CoA_434/2025) denying NUC Electronics' application for suspensive effect of its appeal against the Mannheim Local Division's infringement judgment (UPC_CFI_162/2024) concerning EP 2 028 981 in favour of Hurom. NUC was required to disclose information about its customers and distribution channels; it argued for suspension pending appeal. The Court held that information disclosure orders should only be suspended in exceptional circumstances, and NUC had not shown its appeal would become devoid of purpose without suspensive effect. |
| 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. |
| 2025-06-05 | UPC_APP_24411/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 365 | Procedural | Settled | The Court of Appeal confirmed a settlement agreement between Tandem Diabetes and Roche Diabetes, terminating the appeal proceedings. The settlement arose after the Central Division Paris had dismissed the revocation action and maintained EP 2 196 231 as granted. |
| 2025-06-05 | UPC_APP_25858/2025 | Munich LD | Application Rop 265 | Procedural | Settled | The Munich Local Division permitted Phoenix Contact GmbH & Co. KG's withdrawal of its patent infringement action against ILME entities concerning EP3602692 following a settlement, allowed cancellation of the scheduled oral hearing, and ordered 40% reimbursement of court fees under R.307.9 VerfO as the withdrawal occurred after closure of the written procedure. |
| 2025-06-05 | UPC_APP_25959/2025 | Munich LD | Application Rop 265 | Procedural | Withdrawn | The Munich Local Division issued a decision in a case where both the infringement action (by PHOENIX CONTACT against ILME) and the counterclaim for revocation (by ILME) were withdrawn before the close of the intermediate procedure. The court ordered a 40% refund of court fees for each party (claimant and defendants) and set the value of the infringement action at EUR 750,000 and the counterclaim for revocation at EUR 1,125,000 (150% of infringement value). |
| 2025-06-05 | UPC_APP_25415/2025 | Milan CD | Application RoP262A | Procedural | Procedural only | Milan Central Division confidentiality order (R. 262A RoP) in Insulet Corporation v. EOFLOW Co., Ltd. costs proceedings (EP 4 201 327). Insulet requested confidentiality for attorney fees and expenses in connection with its PI application. The court held that legal costs and attorney fees are not generally confidential, but may qualify for protection under R. 262A if they specifically reveal the company's financial capacity, commercial strategy, or the importance it attaches to the patent. The exhibits were partially classified as confidential on that basis. |
| 2025-06-05 | UPC_APP_25532/2025 | Mannheim LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | Mannheim Local Division dismissed defendants Samsung's requests to exclude claimant Fingon's reply submissions as an impermissible amendment of the case, and to extend the rejoinder deadline. The court held that Fingon's reference to additional Samsung Galaxy S25 devices and further Trusted Applications (TAs) did not constitute a case amendment under Rule 263 RoP as they were further illustrations of the same attacked functionality (Samsung Knox/TEE/TrustZone platform). The decision on whether to exclude the submissions was deferred to the panel after the oral hearing. |
| 2025-06-05 | UPC_CFI_477/2025 | Milan CD | Application RoP262A | — | Procedural only | Procedural order on Insulet Corporation's application for confidentiality (Rule 262A RoP) covering attorneys' fees and expenses in the costs proceedings relating to the preliminary injunction against EOFLOW. The court held that costs of litigation and patent protection may in principle be subject to confidentiality if they reveal the importance a company attaches to its patents and its litigation risk appetite. The order directed proper filing of exhibits in both redacted and unredacted versions. |
| 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. |
| 2025-06-04 | UPC_APP_18828/2025 | Dusseldorf LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | The Düsseldorf Local Division issued a procedural order on 10x Genomics' application to amend the confidentiality club in infringement proceedings against Curio Bioscience, granting deletion of named paralegals from the club but denying the blanket inclusion of any unnamed paralegal. |
| 2025-06-04 | UPC_APP_25212/2025 | The Hague LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | The Hague Local Division issued a rectification order under R.353 RoP correcting clerical errors in a prior procedural order regarding the dates of service on Moderna Germany, Belgium, and Poland, thereby rendering Moderna's preliminary objections admissible for all defendants in infringement actions concerning EP2279254 and EP4241767. |
| 2025-06-03 | UPC_APP_20512/2025 | Mannheim LD | Notice of intention to enforce (RoP118.8) | Enforcement | Procedural only | Order from the Mannheim Local Division (UPC_CFI_365/2023) on Fujifilm's notification of intention to enforce judgment (R. 118.8 RoP). Following a judgment of 2 April 2025 finding infringement of EP 3 511 174 by Kodak entities and ordering information disclosure, Fujifilm sought a warning that Kodak would face penalty payments of up to EUR 30,000 per day of non-compliance. The Court noted its prior decision reserving flexibility on penalties and addressed the enforcement procedure. |
| 2025-06-03 | UPC_APP_21220/2025 | Munich LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | Munich Local Division procedural order on Meril's applications (R. 353 RoP) for rectification of a decision of 4 April 2025 in infringement proceedings concerning a prosthetic heart valve patent (EP 3 669 828) between Edwards Lifesciences and Meril. Meril sought corrections to factual statements about which claims were alleged to be infringed (independent claims 1 and 12 vs. only claim 1 as independent). The order addresses the scope of rectification available under R. 353 RoP. |
| 2025-06-03 | UPC_APP_23569/2025 | Munich LD | Application Rop313 | Procedural | Procedural only | The Munich Local Division granted the application by Shenzhen Dianming Technology Co., Ltd. to join UPC_CFI_245/2025 (SWARCO FUTURIT v Yunex GmbH, EP 2 643 717) as an intervener (Streithelferin) supporting the defendant. The Court also rejected Yunex's earlier application for intervention given it was superseded. Shenzhen Dianming was given 10 days to submit its intervention brief and to respond to the security for costs application. |
| 2025-06-02 | UPC_APP_15203/2025 | Hamburg LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | The Hamburg Local Division granted reinstatement of the missed deadline (Wiedereinsetzung) to the claimant Lionra Technologies Ltd. for filing a cost-assessment application under R. 151 RoP, after a reliable employee in the representatives' office overlooked the deadline despite an adequate four-eyes monitoring system. |
| 2025-06-02 | UPC_APP_25321/2025 | Milan LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | The Milan Local Division granted a joint request by Dainese S.p.A., Alpinestars S.p.A. and associated defendants to stay proceedings relating to EP 3 498 117 pending the outcome of EPO opposition proceedings, while continuing the proceedings in respect of EP 4 072 364, applying R. 295(d) RoP and Art. 43 UPCA. |
| 2025-06-02 | UPC_APP_23446/2025 | Mannheim LD | Application RoP262A | Procedural | Procedural only | The Mannheim Local Division issued a procedural order under Rule 262A RoP granting protection to confidential business information that the defendants were ordered to provide to the claimant as part of an information disclosure order, while an appeal against that order was pending. |
| 2025-06-02 | UPC_APP_23446/2025 | Mannheim LD | Application RoP262A | Procedural | Procedural only | The Mannheim Local Division considered defendants' application under Rule 262A RoP for confidential treatment of sales information provided in compliance with the court's earlier infringement decision, pending the Court of Appeal's decision on suspensive effect. |
| 2025-06-02 | UPC_APP_24791/2025 | Dusseldorf LD | Application Rop 265 | Procedural | Settled | The Düsseldorf Local Division permitted Versah LLC's partial withdrawal of its patent infringement action against Adin Dental Implant Systems GmbH (Defendant 2) concerning EP3402420 following an out-of-court settlement, with each party bearing its own costs for the withdrawn 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_APP_57843/2024 | Hamburg LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | Final order of Hamburg Local Division in Visibly Inc. v Easee B.V. / Easee Holding B.V. / Yves Prevoo (EP 3 918 974) ordering the defendants (as counterclaimants for revocation) to provide joint security of EUR 75,000 for the claimant's legal costs, pursuant to Art. 69(4) UPCA and R. 158 RoP. The court held that Art. 69(4) UPCA does not oblige the defendant to provide security in the infringement action, but a claimant may request security from a defendant acting as counterclaimant in revocation proceedings. |
| 2025-05-30 | UPC_CFI_407/2025 | Brussels LD | Application for preserving evidence pursuant to RoP192 | Evidence | outcomeName.other | The Brussels Local Division granted Genentech / Roche's ex parte applications for an order to preserve evidence (R. 192–198 RoP) and an order for inspection (R. 199 RoP) against Organon and Shanghai Henlius Biotech concerning EP 3 401 335 B1 (biological pharmaceutical patent). The orders were granted after an oral hearing on 23 May 2025. The order to preserve evidence required production of digital information; Organon NV and Organon Heist BV face a penalty of EUR 200,000 per hour for failure to cooperate. Costs are stayed pending the main proceedings. |
| 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 | UPC_APP_25220/2025 | Mannheim LD | Application Rop 265 | Procedural | Settled | The Mannheim Local Division accepted the withdrawal of the infringement action by MED-EL against Advanced Bionics following a settlement between the parties. The proceedings were declared closed; court fees were not refunded as exceptional circumstances under R.370.9(e) RoP applied. |
| 2025-05-28 | ORD_25482/2025 | Munich LD | Generic Order | Evidence | Procedural only | Order of the Munich Local Division on a review (Rule 197.3 RoP) requested by ALD Vacuum Technologies GmbH of an ex-parte evidence preservation and inspection order made on 3 February 2025 in favour of Nanoval GmbH & Co. KG concerning EP 3 083 107. After an oral hearing, the panel reviewed whether the evidence preservation order should be upheld or annulled. |
| 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 | ORD_22456/2025 | Milan CD | Decision By Default | Default judgment | Infringed | Decision by Milan Central Division (UPC_CFI_597/2024, 22 July 2025) on EOFLOW's revocation action and Insulet's counterclaim for infringement of EP 4 201 327 (wearable insulin pump / patch pump). The court rejected EOFLOW's revocation action (patent upheld as valid) and found EOFLOW's EOPatch product infringed the patent. The court ordered an injunction across 16 UPC member states, product recall, removal from distribution channels, destruction, and full information obligations. The decision also addressed the decision-by-default procedure, patent lexicon interpretation, and the cap on recoverable costs in parallel proceedings. |
| 2025-05-28 | UPC_APP_22758/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 265 | Procedural | Withdrawn | The Court of Appeal permitted NanoString Technologies Europe Limited's withdrawal of the revocation action (UPC_CoA_808/2024 / ACT_551180/2023 / UPC_CFI_252/2023) against Harvard's EP 2 794 928, following NanoString's application filed on 14 May 2025. Harvard agreed to the withdrawal and did not oppose. The withdrawal was permitted as Harvard had no legitimate interest in the action being decided. No costs order was issued. The proceedings were declared closed. |
| 2025-05-28 | UPC_APP_24663/2025 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | Costs | Costs only | The Court of Appeal issued an order granting Harvard's application for reimbursement of 60% of the court fees paid for the appeal (UPC_CoA_808/2024) following NanoString's withdrawal of the revocation action. Harvard had paid the appeal court fees as appellant; NanoString had withdrawn the underlying action on 14 May 2025 before closure of the written procedure. The Court ordered reimbursement of 60% of Harvard's appeal court fees under R. 370.9(b)(i) RoP. |
| 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. |