| 2024-12-11 | UPC_APP_64946/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal denied Hand Held Products Inc.'s application for court-ordered simultaneous interpretation (German to English) of the oral hearing in the appeal proceedings against Scandit AG, because the application was filed late (less than one month before the hearing) and the conditions of R. 109.1 RoP were not met; the party was free to arrange interpretation at its own cost under R. 109.4 RoP. |
| 2024-12-11 | ACT_65376/2024 | Munich LD | Application for provisional measures | Preliminary injunction | PI granted | The Munich Local Division granted Huawei an anti-suit/anti-enforcement injunction ordering Netgear to withdraw its anti-enforcement injunction application before a US court (C.D. Cal.) that sought to prevent Huawei from enforcing its SEP patents (EP 3 611 989 and EP 3 678 321) before the UPC, holding that such foreign proceedings violate the EU Charter right to access to justice. |
| 2024-12-11 | UPC_APP_60701/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Application Rop 265 | Procedural | Procedural only | First-instance procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division in an infringement action brought by Dolby International AB and its intervener Access Advance LLC against multiple HP group entities, concerning EP 3 490 258 B1 (a standard-essential patent in the audio codec field). The decision addresses the application under R. 265 RoP and ancillary procedural steps in the written proceedings phase; no final ruling on infringement was issued. |
| 2024-12-11 | ORD_63909/2024 | Paris LD | Generic Order | Infringement merits | Revoked | Decision on the merits from the Paris Local Division (UPC_CFI_395/2023) delivered on 11 December 2024 in DexCom's infringement action against Abbott entities concerning EP 3 831 282. The Court found the patent invalid in its entirety — neither as granted nor as amended by auxiliary requests 1, 2 or 3 — due to added subject-matter under Art. 138(1)(c) EPC. The infringement action was dismissed for lack of legal basis. DexCom was ordered to bear Abbott's costs, with the amount to be determined in separate proceedings. |
| 2024-12-11 | ORD_65290/2024 | Nordic-Baltic RD | Generic Order | Procedural | Procedural only | Nordic-Baltic Regional Division (full panel) order dismissing defendants' request to stay the main infringement proceedings pending EPO opposition proceedings concerning EP 3 769 722. The Court of Appeal had previously set aside an earlier stay dismissal and referred back for reconsideration under R. 295(a) RoP. On reconsideration, the panel dismissed the stay request again in the Meril/Edwards heart valve case (Edward Lifesciences v Meril entities). The request to stay pending Central Division revocation counterclaim was also refused. |
| 2024-12-11 | UPC_CoA_719/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic Order | — | Procedural only | Court of Appeal order on Magna's application for suspensive effect of the preliminary injunction (UPC_CFI_347/2024) issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division. Magna argued the BMW 2 Series Gran Coupé (model F74) was omitted from the list of exempted models. The Court of Appeal denied suspensive effect, finding no obvious error in the CFI's rectification dismissal as Magna had not clearly introduced model F74/Gran Coupé as a distinct model during the injunction proceedings. |
| 2024-12-11 | UPC_CFI_664/2024 | Hamburg LD | Generic Order | — | Procedural only | Procedural order of Hamburg Local Division in Hand Held Products v Scandit AG (EP 3 764 271) clarifying the correct service date of the statement of claim on the defendant (a Swiss company). The court held that R. 271.6 RoP (10-day fiction for registered post) does not apply to service in Switzerland under the Hague Service Convention, and that the actual service date of 20 November 2024 applies. |
| 2024-12-10 | ACT_582093/2023 | Nordic-Baltic RD | Infringement Action | Procedural | Procedural only | The Nordic-Baltic Regional Division issued a post-interim conference procedural order in Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v Meril Life Sciences and others (UPC_CFI_380/2023, EP 3 769 722 — a transcatheter heart valve patent). The order resolved multiple procedural disputes including: admissibility of additional invalidity attacks raised in the counterclaim for revocation; how to deal with the public interest defence; request for a CJEU preliminary reference (deferred); request for a Court expert (rejected); and practical arrangements for the oral hearing. |
| 2024-12-10 | UPC_CoA_470/2023 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | — | outcomeName.other | Order of the Court of Appeal dated 10 December 2024 setting aside the CFI order imposing penalty payments (Zwangsgelder) on NanoString for alleged violations of a preliminary injunction that had been previously revoked by the CoA. The CoA held that the revocation of a preliminary injunction under Art. 75(1) UPCA and R. 242.1 RoP is retroactive — the revoked order is treated as having never had legal effect. Consequently, any subsequent order imposing penalties based on the revoked injunction also lacks legal basis, even if it concerns alleged violations before the revocation. The CFI penalty order was set aside, 10x Genomics' applications were dismissed, 10x was ordered to bear all costs, and NanoString's payment made in compliance with the penalty order was to be reimbursed. |
| 2024-12-10 | UPC_CoA_470/2023 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | — | outcomeName.other | The Court of Appeal revoked the Munich Local Division's order imposing penalty payments on NanoString for breach of a provisional injunction regarding EP 4 108 782, and rejected 10x's requests. The Court held that the Court of Appeal's earlier revocation (26 February 2024) of the provisional injunction order of 19 September 2023 had retroactive effect, meaning that the order was void ab initio and therefore could not serve as a valid legal basis for any penalty order, even for alleged breaches prior to the revocation. 10x was ordered to bear the costs of both instances and to reimburse the amount paid by NanoString. |
| 2024-12-09 | UPC_APP_64018/2024 | Munich LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | The Local Division Munich held that R.275.1 RoP requires an attempt at alternative service even when formal service under the Hague Convention has been seriously and definitively refused, but that alternative service can be dispensed with only if legally and factually impossible; since no alternative was available, the court was unable to order good service under R.275.2 without first exhausting other options. |
| 2024-12-09 | UPC_APP_64018/2024 | Munich LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | Duplicate document of the same order issued on 9 December 2024 by the Local Division Munich concerning alternative service: the court held that alternative service must be attempted before resorting to R.275.2 RoP, unless no legally and factually possible alternative exists. |
| 2024-12-09 | UPC_CFI_509/2023 | Munich LD | Generic application | — | Procedural only | Munich Local Division held that steps already taken to bring a request for preliminary injunction to defendant's attention constituted good service under R.275.2 RoP, after service via Chinese authorities had failed or been seriously delayed for more than six months. The order established service rules when Hague Convention service fails. |
| 2024-12-09 | UPC_CFI_755/2024 | Munich LD | Application for provisional measures | Procedural | Procedural only | The Munich Local Division issued a rectification order (R. 353 RoP) correcting a factual error in the anti-suit/anti-enforcement injunction order of 9 December 2024 against Realtek Semiconductor, clarifying language about the prior license agreement between Avago's predecessor and Realtek. |
| 2024-12-03 | UPC_APP_48598/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | Düsseldorf Local Division order on 10x Genomics' application for security for legal costs to be provided by the defendant Curio Bioscience, in spatial transcriptomics patent infringement proceedings. The Court held that not only claimants but also defendants may be ordered to provide security for costs under R. 158 RoP. However, when a claimant requests security from the defendant, the court must take into account that the claimant made a voluntary decision to litigate, which bears on the weighing of interests. The court must ensure the defendant's right to a fair trial is not compromised. |
| 2024-12-03 | UPC_APP_56246/2024 | Milan CD | Preliminary objection | motionName.jurisdictional | Dismissed | The Milan Central Division rejected GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals S.A.'s preliminary objection (R. 19 RoP) in the revocation action UPC_CFI_476/2024 (EP 4 183 412 — a vaccine-related patent owned by GSK). GSK argued that a parallel infringement action by Pfizer before the Düsseldorf Local Division challenged the Central Division's competence over the revocation action. The Court held that the infringement action appeared inadmissible when lodged (filed on 5 August 2024, before the patent was granted on 14 August 2024) and therefore could not challenge the Central Division's competence over the revocation action under Art. 33 UPCA. The request for a hearing before deciding the preliminary objection was also rejected. |
| 2024-12-03 | APL_32012/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | PI denied | Court of Appeal lifted the preliminary injunction granted by Munich Local Division against SharkNinja for alleged infringement of Dyson's EP 2 043 492 (hand-held vacuum cleaner). The Court found on the balance of probabilities it was not more likely than not that the patent was infringed, noting that the principal mode of separation in the SharkNinja product is a filter, not cyclonic separation as claimed. Dyson ordered to bear SharkNinja's costs for both instances. |
| 2024-12-03 | UPC_CoA_297/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | — | PI denied | The Court of Appeal set aside the first-instance preliminary injunction granted against SharkNinja, holding that on a balance of probabilities it was not more likely than not that SharkNinja's product infringed claim 1 of Dyson's patent (EP not specified in excerpt). Dyson was ordered to bear SharkNinja's costs in both instances. |
| 2024-12-02 | UPC_CFI_114/2024 | Munich LD | Application Rop 333 | Procedural | Procedural only | Procedural order (in German) addressing multiple applications in the infringement action by Heraeus Electronics against Vibrantz GmbH (EP 3 215 288, metal sintering preparation). The panel reviewed: (1) rejection of amendment to include indirect infringement of process claim; (2) amendment to include Romania; (3) Vibrantz's application to expand invalidity counterclaim to Romania; (4) replacement of counter-defendant in revocation counterclaim; and (5) various other claimant applications. |
| 2024-11-29 | UPC_CFI_307/2024 | Paris CD | Revocation Action | Revocation merits | Patent maintained | The Paris Central Division dismissed NJOY Netherlands B.V.'s revocation action against EP 2 875 740 B1 (a patent owned by VMR Products LLC relating to electronic vapour products/e-cigarettes with a magnetic cartomizer retention mechanism). The Court found the patent novel and inventive over the asserted prior art combinations (Cross + DiFonzo, Pan + DiFonzo, and common general knowledge). The patent is maintained as granted. NJOY as the unsuccessful party bears the costs up to a ceiling of EUR 500,001. |
| 2024-11-29 | UPC_CoA_548/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | Court of Appeal upheld the Düsseldorf Local Division's order requiring SodaStream Industries Ltd. (claimant/respondent) to provide security for costs in patent infringement proceedings (EP 1 793 917) against Aarke AB. The CoA affirmed the legal standard for security for costs: only the claimant's own financial position is relevant (not that of its group); a claimant's willingness to pay costs and the likely outcome of the case are irrelevant; enforcement being unduly burdensome suffices (need not be proven impossible). The appeal by Aarke was partly upheld in that the CFI applied criteria not in conformity with this standard, but the outcome (ordering SodaStream to provide security) was correct since SodaStream has sufficient financial means. |
| 2024-11-29 | UPC_CFI_355/2023 | Dusseldorf LD | Generic application | — | Procedural only | Procedural order rejecting and disregarding Defendants' (Kodak entities) further written submissions filed on 28 November 2024 because no reasoned request was made and no leave was granted by the judge-rapporteur for further submissions pursuant to Rule 36 RoP. |
| 2024-11-29 | UPC_CFI_355/2023 | Dusseldorf LD | Generic application | — | Procedural only | Procedural order granting the Claimant's request for simultaneous interpretation from English to Japanese at the oral hearing scheduled for 17-18 December 2024, issued pursuant to Rule 109.1 RoP. |
| 2024-11-28 | UPC_APP_60286/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Application RoP262A | Procedural | Procedural only | The Düsseldorf Local Division issued a confidentiality order under R. 262A RoP in the infringement action brought by Valeo Electrification against Magna entities, granting the claimant's request to add Florian Saadi to its confidential-access team while declining to extend access further. |
| 2024-11-28 | UPC_CoA_490/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal addressed the appeal against a provisional measures order, ruling on the appellant's classification as a micro-enterprise or small enterprise for the purposes of court fee reductions. The matter concerned a default decision and the appellant's failure to demonstrate eligibility for the reduced fee rate. |
| 2024-11-27 | APL_59329/2024 | Court of Appeal | Request for a discretionary review (RoP 220.3) | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | Court of Appeal order on a request for discretionary review (R. 220.3 RoP) of a first-instance order requiring TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR to provide security for costs of EUR 600,000 (R. 158 RoP), in which leave to appeal had been refused. The Court of Appeal examined whether a judge-rapporteur acting alone has competence to issue a security-for-costs order under R. 158 RoP and to refuse leave to appeal, or whether the full panel is required. The order resulted in a further procedural step inviting party submissions on this competence question. |
| 2024-11-27 | UPC_APP_62687/2024 | Milan LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | The Milan Local Division issued a short procedural order rescheduling the interim conference in Oerlikon Textile GmbH & Co. KG v Himson Engineering Private Limited (UPC_CFI_240/2023, EP 2 145 848) from 10:30 to 14:30 on 6 December 2024, to be held by videoconference rather than in person, following a request from Himson's representatives citing prior professional commitments. |
| 2024-11-27 | UPC_CFI_308/2023 | Paris CD | Revocation Action | Revocation merits | Revoked | The Central Division Paris revoked European patent EP 3 456 214 (relating to a vaporizer/e-cigarette device) in its entirety. The patent was found to lack inventive step over the prior art. All auxiliary requests for partial maintenance were rejected as either unsubstantiated or unreasonable in number. The defendant (patent proprietor VMR Products LLC) was ordered to bear the litigation costs. |
| 2024-11-26 | UPC_APP_55394/2024 | Paris CD | Amend Document | Procedural | Procedural only | The Central Division Paris granted Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies leave to reduce the damages sought from a higher amount to EUR 2 million, holding that a reduction of the damages claimed constitutes an unconditional limitation of a claim that must always be granted under R.263(3) RoP. |
| 2024-11-26 | UPC_APP_59539/2024 | Munich LD | Generic application | Costs | Procedural only | The Munich Local Division considered the defendants' application for security for costs from the claimant GXD-Bio Corporation (a Korean IP monetization/NPE company), finding the claimant had insufficient financial resources based on credit rating and corporate structure evidence. The court addressed the appropriate level of security under Rule 158 RoP. |
| 2024-11-26 | ACT_592899/2023 | Paris LD | Infringement Action | Procedural | Procedural only | The Paris Local Division issued a procedural order following the interim conference in C-KORE Systems Limited v Novawell (UPC_CFI_468/2023, EP 2 265 793). The order resolves several procedural disputes: (1) declined to reject exhibit 57 of C-KORE's unredacted statement; (2) ruled on witness requests from Novawell; (3) addressed interpretation and language requests; and (4) confirmed the regularity of previously conducted saisie (seizure) operations, noting that the court-appointed expert was appropriately independent. |
| 2024-11-25 | UPC_APP_61143/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Application Rop 333 | Procedural | Procedural only | The Düsseldorf Local Division full panel dismissed FUJIFILM's application for review of a judge-rapporteur's order that had denied FUJIFILM's application to submit an additional written pleading in response to new factual allegations in the defendants' rejoinder regarding a prior use defence. |
| 2024-11-25 | ORD_62633/2024 | Milan LD | Generic Order | Procedural | Procedural only | The Milan Local Division issued a case management order ahead of the oral hearing, addressing agenda items including settlement prospects, translation errors in the Italian validation of the patent, the counterclaim for revocation, auxiliary requests, and infringement evidence. |
| 2024-11-25 | ACT_43563/2024 | Munich LD | Application for provisional measures | Preliminary injunction | PI denied | The Local Division Munich denied Häfele's application for provisional measures against Kunststoff KG Nehl & Co for alleged infringement of a patent relating to furniture fittings, finding that serious doubts about patent validity (inventive step, prior art D8) outweighed the likelihood of success and that the balance of interests did not favour an injunction. |
| 2024-11-25 | UPC_CFI_395/2023 | Paris LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | Procedural order from the Paris Local Division dated 25 November 2024 on DexCom's application (under R. 334(e) and R. 336 RoP) requesting the court to allow post-hearing submissions regarding a Munich Regional Court decision of 6 November 2024 on EP 2 939 158 (parent patent of EP 3 831 282 in suit). The court had closed the oral hearing on 30 October 2024. DexCom argued the Munich decision finding infringement by Abbott of the parent patent's claim 1 was relevant. Abbott argued the application was inadmissible. The order addresses admissibility of supplemental submissions after closure of hearing under Chapter 8 RoP case management provisions. |
| 2024-11-22 | ACT_549536/2023 | The Hague LD | Infringement Action | Infringement merits | Infringed | The Hague Local Division found Arkyne Technologies (Bioo) infringed Plant-e's EP 2 137 782 B1 by equivalence (bioelectrical energy from plant photosynthesis), granted an injunction, ordered recall and destruction of infringing products, and required a customer notice. |
| 2024-11-22 | ACT_545551/2023 | Mannheim LD | Infringement Action | Infringement merits | Infringed | The Mannheim Local Division found that Guangdong OPPO and OROPE Germany infringed Panasonic's EP 2 568 724 (radio communication patent), granted injunction, recall and other relief, while dismissing the invalidity counterclaim and the FRAND counterclaim. |
| 2024-11-22 | UPC_APP_62286/2024 | Mannheim LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | The Mannheim Local Division dismissed the defendants' application to stay or postpone the judgment-delivery hearing, confirming that the pronouncement of the decision would proceed as scheduled on 22 November 2024. |
| 2024-11-22 | ACT_40442/2024 | Milan LD | Application for provisional measures | Preliminary injunction | PI denied | The Milan Local Division dismissed Insulet Corporation's application for provisional measures against A. Menarini Diagnostics S.r.l. concerning EP4201327 (insulin pump technology), finding the application inadmissible as the auxiliary requests to amend the patent are not permissible in provisional measures proceedings, and also dismissing Menarini's request for security for costs. |
| 2024-11-22 | UPC_CFI_380/2024 | Milan CD | Application for provisional measures | — | PI denied | The Milan Central Division rejected Insulet Corporation's application for a preliminary injunction against EOFLOW Co., Ltd. for alleged infringement of EP 4 201 327 (insulin pump). The Court held that the applicant had not established with sufficient certainty that the patent was valid (particularly claim 1 which appeared to lack novelty or inventive step over the prior art). The auxiliary request to amend the patent under R. 30.2 RoP was inadmissible in provisional measures proceedings given the requirement for expediency and the adversarial principle. Insulet was ordered to bear the costs; value in dispute EUR 2,500,000; cost ceiling EUR 400,000. |
| 2024-11-22 | UPC_CFI_239/2023 | The Hague LD | Counterclaim for revocation | Revocation merits | Infringed | The Hague Local Division held that the patent is valid and infringed by equivalence. The Court ordered Arkyne Technologies (Bioo) to cease and desist from infringing EP 2 137 782 by applying the patented method or supplying Bioo Panels, Bioo Benches, or Bioo products in Benelux, France, Germany, and Italy. The Court rejected the counterclaim for revocation. The Court also ordered a customer notification letter/website publication. |
| 2024-11-21 | APL_50205/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal addressed the conditions for staying infringement proceedings pending opposition proceedings before the EPO under Art. 33(10) UPCA and R.295(a) RoP. The Court held that a stay may be ordered where a rapid decision by the EPO Opposition Division can be expected, even if an appeal against that decision is likely. |
| 2024-11-21 | UPC_APP_58075/2024 | Munich LD | Generic application | Evidence | Procedural only | The Munich Local Division issued an order allowing the claimant Collomix GmbH to submit a physical exhibit (a PARKSIDE water dispensing device) as evidence after the statement of claim had been filed, finding that the RoP does not prohibit submission of evidence for facts pleaded in the claim at any stage. |
| 2024-11-21 | ORD_59318/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Generic Order | Procedural | Procedural only | The Düsseldorf Local Division issued a procedural order in the DexCom v. Abbott infringement action concerning EP 4 026 488, taking an early decision pursuant to R. 37.2 RoP on how to proceed under Art. 33(3) UPCA (bifurcation or combined hearing of infringement and validity). The court exercised its discretion to hear both the infringement action and any counterclaim for revocation together. |
| 2024-11-21 | APL_44633/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | Decision by the Court of Appeal (UPC_CoA_456/2024, 21 November 2024) dismissing OrthoApnea's appeal against a first-instance order permitting the claimant to raise a doctrine-of-equivalents argument. The CoA held: not every new argument is an amendment of the case requiring leave under R. 263 RoP; raising the doctrine of equivalents does not change the nature or scope of the infringement dispute when the same patent and product remain at issue; admissibility of new arguments depends on circumstances and procedural fairness. |
| 2024-11-21 | APL_44633/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Dismissed | Court of Appeal declared the appeal against the primary first-instance order inadmissible and rejected the appeal against the review order. The CoA clarified the rules on amendment of a case versus new arguments: not every new argument constitutes an amendment of case requiring leave under R.263 RoP; the nature or scope of the dispute must change. The anonymised respondent's claims relating to admissibility of new arguments were assessed. The case involves a patent infringement action before a Dutch-language division. |
| 2024-11-21 | UPC_APP_62076/2024 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 223 | Procedural | Procedural only | The Standing Judge of the Court of Appeal (Klaus Grabinski) provisionally granted suspensive effect to Magna's appeal against the Düsseldorf Local Division's preliminary injunction of 31 October 2024 (EP 3 320 602), but only to the limited extent that the exception to the injunction (covering existing BMW delivery obligations as of 8 October 2024) did not include the 'BMW 2 Series Gran Coupé' model. The order was issued pending a final decision on the suspensive effect application by panel 2 of the Court of Appeal. Note: The case number in the metadata is listed as UPC_APP_62076/2024 but the actual CoA reference is UPC_CoA_719/2024. |
| 2024-11-21 | UPC_APP_62076/2024 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 223 | Procedural | Procedural only | Identical situation to App_62076/2024 but concerning EP 3 320 604 (UPC_CoA_720/2024, ACT_39183/2024, UPC_CFI_368/2024). The Standing Judge provisionally granted suspensive effect to Magna's appeal against the Düsseldorf LD's preliminary injunction of 31 October 2024 to the limited extent that the 'BMW 2 Series Gran Coupé' model was not included in the exception to the injunction, pending the panel's final decision on suspensive effect. |
| 2024-11-20 | UPC_APP_59991/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | The Düsseldorf Local Division dismissed Magna's application for rectification under R. 353 RoP of an injunction order, finding that the alleged omissions and characterisations regarding vehicle models and a French vindication action did not constitute clerical errors or obvious slips. |
| 2024-11-20 | UPC_APP_60996/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | Düsseldorf Local Division procedural order extending the time limit for DexCom Inc. to file its Rejoinder to the Counterclaim for Revocation and Reply to Application to Amend until 11 December 2024, in DexCom v. Abbott entities (EP 4 026 488). The extension was granted on grounds of fairness/equity because the previous time period for defendants had been similarly extended with claimant's consent. |