| 2025-02-20 | UPC_APP_6987/2025 | Brussels LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | Brussels Local Division (20 February 2025) ruled on HYLER BV's contested addition of new non-infringement arguments and a new document in its rejoinder. The panel rejected the primary request, upheld the alternative request in part, and excluded certain paragraphs of HYLER's rejoinder (paragraphs 506–510) from consideration, finding they introduced new arguments not justified by Cretes' reply submissions. The request for an extra week to respond was also rendered moot. |
| 2025-02-20 | UPC_APP_3348/2025 | Milan LD | Application RoP262.1 (b) | Procedural | Procedural only | The Milan Local Division denied Bhagat Textile Engineers' application for access to the counterclaim for revocation file under Rule 262.1(b) RoP, finding the information sought could be obtained through other means and that access would compromise the integrity of ongoing settlement negotiations. |
| 2025-02-20 | UPC_APP_3348/2025 | Milan LD | Application RoP262.1 (b) | Procedural | Dismissed | Application by Bhagat Textile Engineers for public access under R.262.1(b) RoP to the counterclaim for revocation case file (Himson v. Oerlikon) in proceedings before the Milan Local Division was rejected. The court held that the information sought was obtainable from other public sources, that Bhagat had already been found to infringe the patent in parallel proceedings and had procedurally chosen not to challenge the patent, and that granting access would compromise the integrity of pending settlement negotiations between the parties. |
| 2025-02-19 | ORD_8329/2025 | Paris LD | Generic Order | Procedural | Procedural only | The Paris Local Division denied POSCO's application under R. 262.1(b) RoP to access the register of the infringement case (ArcelorMittal v. XPENG), because the action was at an early stage with no validity challenge yet filed and no sufficient justification for access based on parallel EPO opposition proceedings. |
| 2025-02-19 | UPC_APP_5727/2025 | Munich LD | Application Rop 265 | Procedural | Settled | The Munich Local Division granted Dyson Technology Limited's withdrawal of its infringement action and SharkNinja's withdrawal of its counterclaim for revocation following an out-of-court settlement, with 60% of court fees to be reimbursed to each withdrawing party and no cost applications to be filed. |
| 2025-02-19 | UPC_CFI_112/2025 | Munich LD | Application for provisional measures | Preliminary injunction | Permanent injunction | The Munich Local Division granted Nokia Technologies and related entities an ex parte anti-anti-suit injunction (AASI) against Shanghai Sunmi Technology entities, prohibiting them from pursuing proceedings before a Chinese court in Kunming seeking to prevent Nokia from enforcing its standard-essential patents at the UPC. |
| 2025-02-19 | UPC_APP_2704/2025 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | The UPC Court of Appeal ordered the release of security deposits (totalling EUR 500,000) previously provided by Network System Technologies LLC in three cases following withdrawal of its infringement actions against Audi AG, Texas Instruments, and Volkswagen, applying R.352.2 RoP by analogy to security for costs. |
| 2025-02-19 | UPC_APP_7738/2025 | Dusseldorf LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | Procedural order of the Düsseldorf Local Division in infringement proceedings by Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd. against Solarlab Aiko Europe GmbH, Aiko Energy Netherlands B.V., Aiko Energy Germany GmbH and other defendants concerning EP 3 065 184 B1. The order relates to a procedural application (nature not fully specified in excerpt but consistent with confidentiality or time period issues). |
| 2025-02-19 | ACT_7940/2024 | Hamburg LD | Infringement Action | Infringement merits | Not infringed | Hamburg Local Division final decision in infringement action (with revocation counterclaim) concerning a patent for reducing latency in wireless network data packet processing (claimed as standard-essential). Both the infringement claim and the revocation counterclaim were dismissed. The court found non-infringement after interpreting the patent claims with reference to the description and drawings (Art. 69 EPC), concluding that the defendant's Cisco products did not implement the claimed DMA-based simultaneous header writing mechanism. The revocation counterclaim also failed. Costs were split: claimant to bear 40%, defendants 60%. |
| 2025-02-19 | UPC_CFI_16/2025 | The Hague LD | Application for preserving evidence pursuant to RoP192 | Evidence | Procedural only | The Hague Local Division issued a procedural order concerning access to an expert's written report from evidence preservation proceedings, regulating a confidentiality regime for the report initially limiting access to defendants' representatives and later extending it to the applicant. |
| 2025-02-19 | UPC_CoA_844/2024 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 265 | — | Withdrawn | Order from the Court of Appeal dated 19 February 2025 permitting Aarke AB to withdraw its appeal against the Düsseldorf Local Division's judgment (which had found infringement of EP 1 793 917 by Aarke and issued an injunction). The CoA found no legitimate interest of SodaStream in the appeal being decided, and permitted the withdrawal under R. 265.1 RoP. The appeal was declared closed and a cost decision was issued as required by R. 265.2(c) RoP. |
| 2025-02-19 | UPC_CFI_322/2024 | Munich LD | Application Rop 265 | — | Settled | The Munich Local Division declared both the infringement action (by Dyson Technology Limited against SharkNinja Europe Limited and SharkNinja Germany GmbH concerning EP 2 043 492) and the defendants' counterclaim for revocation closed, following an out-of-court settlement. Dyson withdrew the infringement claim and SharkNinja withdrew the revocation counterclaim, both waiving their respective claims. Each party was ordered to receive 60% reimbursement of the relevant court fees. |
| 2025-02-19 | UPC_CoA_218/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | — | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal ordered the release of security deposits (totalling EUR 500,000) that NTS had provided for costs in three related cases, following withdrawal of the underlying infringement actions by NTS at the Munich Local Division. |
| 2025-02-19 | UPC_CFI_156/2024 | Munich LD | Generic Order | — | Procedural only | The Munich Local Division granted Chainzone Technology's application for access to the court file under Rule 262.1(b) RoP in evidence-preservation proceedings. Access was granted following SWARCO's lack of objection, noting that Chainzone had been admitted as an intervener in parallel proceedings before the Vienna Local Division. |
| 2025-02-19 | UPC_CFI_156/2024 | Munich LD | Application for preserving evidence pursuant to RoP192 | — | Procedural only | Order of the Munich Local Division (full panel) in evidence-preservation proceedings brought by SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme against Yunex GmbH concerning EP 2 643 717 (traffic signal systems). Following resolution of the evidence-preservation application, the court addressed procedural questions: (1) Rule 360 RoP applies by analogy to evidence-preservation proceedings; (2) Rule 198.1 RoP applies by analogy in cases of resolution of an evidence-preservation application; (3) costs are reserved for the main proceedings. The order also addressed standards for specific and substantiated denial of facts (Regel 171.2 and 284 RoP). |
| 2025-02-17 | UPC_APP_6774/2025 | Dusseldorf LD | Application Rop 265 | Procedural | Withdrawn | The Düsseldorf Local Division allowed the claimant's withdrawal of the infringement action and the defendants' withdrawal of the counterclaim for revocation, both with mutual consent, declared the proceedings closed, and directed 60% reimbursement of court fees to each side. |
| 2025-02-17 | UPC_APP_66551/2024 | Munich LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | The Munich Local Division rejected Meril's application for rectification of an infringement decision (ORD_598479/2023) under R. 353 RoP, finding that the alleged inaccuracies in the statement of facts did not constitute clerical errors or obvious slips warranting correction. |
| 2025-02-17 | UPC_APP_56087/2024 | Paris CD | Generic application | Costs | Dismissed | Request for security for legal costs (R. 158 RoP) by claimant AYLO PREMIUM LTD against defendant DISH Technologies L.L.C. rejected. The court found insufficient evidence that the defendant would be unable to pay litigation costs, noting that EchoStar had submitted a declaration to reimburse up to EUR 400,000. The parallel request regarding the patent amendment application was referred to a separate order. |
| 2025-02-17 | UPC_CFI_527/2024 | Nordic-Baltic RD | Application for preserving evidence pursuant to RoP192 | — | Withdrawn | Nordic-Baltic Regional Division declared the evidence preservation proceedings closed following Imbox Protection's withdrawal of its application after being convinced that the defendants do not infringe EP 2 276 862. As the unsuccessful party, Imbox was ordered to reimburse each defendant (Brunngård Group AB and Footbridge Group AB) SEK 225,000 in legal costs. The ceiling for recoverable costs applies as a joint ceiling regardless of number of defendants. |
| 2025-02-17 | UPC_CFI_440/2023 | Paris LD | Infringement Action | Procedural | Procedural only | The Paris Local Division issued an interim management order following the preparatory conference (R. 105.5 RoP) in the infringement action by Seoul Viosys against Laser Components SAS and Photon Wave Co. concerning EP 3 404 726 (UV LEDs). The order summarised the key contested legal and factual issues (claim interpretation, PKB chip characteristics), fixed the case value at EUR 500,000 (rejecting the defendant's argument for EUR 250,000), and scheduled the oral hearing for 13 March 2025. |
| 2025-02-15 | UPC_APP_5366/2025 | Milan CD | Generic application | Costs | Costs only | Procedural order from the Milan section of the Central Division (UPC_CFI_380/2024) on costs in preliminary injunction proceedings. EOFLOW applied for reimbursement of its costs incurred defending against Insulet's rejected preliminary injunction application. The Court ruled that costs of a preliminary phase must be settled at the time of the final merits decision, not parcelled out by procedural stage, and therefore deferred the costs question. |
| 2025-02-15 | UPC_APP_65673/2024 | Milan CD | Generic application | Costs | Costs only | Procedural order by Milan Central Division (UPC_CFI_380/2024, 15 February 2025) on EOFLOW's application for costs following the rejection of Insulet's preliminary injunction. The court held that costs of PI proceedings must be settled with the final decision on the merits and cannot be parcelled out according to the outcome of individual stages while merits proceedings are ongoing or to follow. |
| 2025-02-14 | UPC_APP_51844/2024 | Munich LD | Preliminary objection | motionName.jurisdictional | Dismissed | The Munich Local Division rejected the preliminary objection of eight Myriad Genetics defendants challenging UPC jurisdiction and the claimant's standing to sue, holding that questions of standing and entitlement to asserted claims relate only to the merits and not to jurisdiction under Art. 32 UPCA. |
| 2025-02-14 | APL_39664/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | PI granted | Court of Appeal Panel 2 set aside the The Hague Local Division's refusal to grant provisional measures, and granted a preliminary injunction in favour of Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. against Sibio Technology Limited and Umedwings Netherlands B.V. concerning EP 3 831 283 (continuous glucose monitoring device). The Court found the patent valid (overcoming added matter and other validity challenges) and likely infringed by Sibionics' GS1 Device. A general injunction was ordered against all infringing acts in UPC Contracting Member States. Sibionics was also ordered to provide origin/distribution chain information and to deliver up infringing products. Penalty payments of EUR 10,000 per infringing product or EUR 100,000 per day were imposed. |
| 2025-02-12 | UPC_APP_67626/2024 | Munich LD | Preliminary objection | motionName.jurisdictional | Procedural only | The Munich Local Division judge-rapporteur rejected the defendants' preliminary objection (admissibility challenge under Art. 33(2) UPCA) to the infringement action filed by biolitec Holding GmbH & Co. KG, confirming the Munich Local Division's jurisdiction over the claim and ordering that the statement of claim was validly served on 2 December 2024. |
| 2025-02-12 | UPC_APP_4511/2025 | Dusseldorf LD | Application RoP262A | Procedural | Procedural only | The Düsseldorf Local Division issued a confidentiality order under R.262A RoP protecting specified information in Apple's rejoinder to the reply to the statement of defence in the infringement proceedings between Ona Patents SL and Apple entities. |
| 2025-02-12 | ORD_7284/2025 | Court of Appeal | Generic Order | Procedural | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal addressed representation requirements in a public access-to-file case concerning EP 3 646 825, holding that lawyers and European Patent Attorneys are not exempt from the duty to be represented when they are parties before the UPC, and gave Respondents 14 days to appoint proper representatives. |
| 2025-02-12 | ORD_64355/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic Order | Procedural | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal ruled that lawyers and European Patent Attorneys are not exempt from the mandatory representation requirement under Rule 8.1 RoP when they are themselves parties before the UPC, and that representation is a public policy requirement the court may raise at any time. |
| 2025-02-12 | APL_58177/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | Court of Appeal Panel 1a order on the scope of confidentiality protection (R. 262A RoP) in proceedings by Daedalus Prime LLC (appellant/claimant) against Xiaomi entities, with MediaTek as intervener, concerning EP 2 792 100. The order addresses whether US attorneys (non-EU, non-UPCA Art. 48 representatives) may be granted full access to confidential information. The Court held that R. 262A.6 RoP does not require persons accessing confidential information to be employees or Art. 48 UPCA representatives; access depends on necessity and trustworthiness assessed case by case. |
| 2025-02-12 | ORD_7289/2025 | Court of Appeal | Generic Order | Procedural | Procedural only | Court of Appeal order in Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. v. SWAT Medical AB / Respondent 1 concerning representation (R. 8.1 RoP). The appeal arose from a public access application (R. 262.1(b) RoP). The court held: (1) even lawyers and European Patent Attorneys who are themselves parties must be represented before the UPC; (2) representation is a public policy admissibility issue the court may raise at any time of its own motion; (3) Meril Life Sciences' late argument that the access request was inadmissible from the outset due to invalid representation was brought too late under R. 226 and R. 222.2 RoP. |
| 2025-02-12 | ACT_53813/2024 | Munich LD | Infringement Action | Procedural | Procedural only | The Munich Local Division issued a procedural scheduling order in Syngenta Limited v Sumi Agro Europe Limited and Sumi Agro Limited (UPC_CFI_566/2024, EP 2 152 073), setting the interim conference for 6 October 2025 and the oral hearing for 10 December 2025. The Court also requested the assignment of a technically qualified judge and invited Syngenta to submit observations on case management. |
| 2025-02-11 | UPC_APP_3915/2025 | Munich LD | Application Rop 365 | Procedural | Settled | Infringement action by BSN Medical GmbH against Brightwake Ltd. and Advancis Medical entities for infringement of EP 3 831 350 and EP 3 033 058 concluded by court-confirmed settlement. The parties reached a settlement agreement filed on 07 February 2025. The order confirms the settlement and addresses a confidentiality request. |
| 2025-02-11 | UPC_CoA_563/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Dismissed | Court of Appeal rejected Suinno's appeal against a first-instance procedural order in the infringement action Suinno brought against Microsoft before the Paris Central Division. The appeal was rejected. |
| 2025-02-10 | UPC_APP_67764/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Application Rop 265 | Procedural | Withdrawn | The Düsseldorf Local Division accepted the withdrawal of Dolby International AB's infringement action and declared the revocation counterclaim moot, following a settlement between the parties. Each party bears its own costs; partial court fee refunds were ordered. |
| 2025-02-10 | ORD_6847/2025 | Munich LD | Generic Order | motionName.jurisdictional | Dismissed | The Munich Local Division rejected XSYS's preliminary objection to the court's jurisdiction, holding that the UPC has jurisdiction for acts alleged to have occurred before UPCA's entry into force and before opt-out withdrawal, and that jurisdiction and applicable law are separate questions. |
| 2025-02-10 | ACT_59020/2024 | Munich LD | Application For Costs | Costs | Costs only | The Munich Local Division issued a costs assessment decision in favour of SSAB Swedish Steel GmbH and SSAB Europe Oy against Tiroler Rohre GmbH following the withdrawal of a provisional measures application after oral hearing, setting the recoverable costs and addressing hourly rates and time charges for legal representatives. |
| 2025-02-10 | UPC_APP_45481/2024 | Munich LD | Preliminary objection | motionName.jurisdictional | Dismissed | Order of the Munich Local Division (judge-rapporteur) rejecting a preliminary objection filed by defendants ILME S.p.A. and ILME GmbH against Claimant PHOENIX CONTACT GmbH's infringement action. The court dismissed the preliminary objection and all auxiliary requests, and continued the main proceedings. Leave to appeal was granted under Rule 220.2 RoP, as the court found the legal question concerning UPC jurisdictional rules (specifically interpretation of the UPCA as an international treaty measured against the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties) may be significant for many cases and warrants uniform application. No preliminary reference to the CJEU under Art. 21 UPCA was warranted. |
| 2025-02-10 | UPC_APP_68380/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Application Rop 265 | Procedural | Settled | Düsseldorf Local Division allowed withdrawal of Dolby International AB's infringement action (EP 3 490 258 B1) and ASUS's counterclaim for revocation, following an out-of-court settlement. The court confirmed both withdrawals and terminated all proceedings, ordered each party to bear its own legal costs (no cross-reimbursement), directed reimbursement of 60% of court fees to claimant (EUR 22,200) and 60% to the counterclaiming defendants (EUR 12,000 total), and set the value in dispute at EUR 3,500,000 for both the infringement action and the counterclaim. |
| 2025-02-10 | UPC_APP_3474/2025 | Helsinki LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | Helsinki Local Division granted AIM Sport Development AG's application under Rule 263 RoP for leave to amend its infringement case (replacing AIM Sport Vision AG as claimant) and to add TGI Sport Virtual UK Limited as a new defendant under Rule 305 RoP. The court allowed the amendment noting the risk of irreconcilable decisions from different courts if not joined. The defendants (Supponor companies) were ordered to file their statement of defence within three months. Leave to appeal was granted. |
| 2025-02-10 | UPC_CFI_640/2024 | Munich LD | Application For Costs | — | Costs only | Decision of the Munich Local Division on a costs assessment (Kostenfestsetzung) following withdrawal of an application for provisional measures by SSAB Europe Oy and SSAB Swedish Steel GmbH against Tiroler Rohre GmbH after the oral hearing. The first-instance court had previously ordered Tiroler Rohre (the unsuccessful PI applicant) to bear costs including preparation of the protective brief. The costs decision addressed the reasonableness of hours billed by claimants' legal representatives, making deductions for excessive time entries across multiple tasks (protective brief, main PI proceedings, e-mail correspondence). Allowable costs were calculated for one attorney-at-law, one patent attorney, and a second patent attorney. |
| 2025-02-08 | UPC_APP_1202/2025 | Munich LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | Procedural order of the Munich Local Division on an application by Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson and Ericsson GmbH under Rule 262A RoP for confidentiality protection of license negotiation information in infringement proceedings by Motorola Mobility LLC concerning EP 3 780 758. The order addresses the scope of access to FRAND negotiation information, in particular whether Lenovo entities should be included in the access circle. |
| 2025-02-07 | UPC_APP_5885/2025 | Milan LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | The Milan Local Division granted Dainese S.p.A.'s application under R. 9 RoP to extend the deadline for filing its defence to counterclaims for revocation and reply to statements of defence, in light of a concurrent EPO oral hearing on 13 February 2025 for the parallel opposition proceedings, and invited the parties to submit a joint request for alignment of future procedural deadlines. |
| 2025-02-06 | UPC_CFI_210/2023 | Mannheim LD | Generic Order | Procedural | Infringed | Procedural order publishing the redacted version of the substantive decision of 22 November 2024 in the infringement action (with FRAND counterclaim and invalidity counterclaim) between Panasonic Holdings Corporation and OPPO/OROPE Germany GmbH. The underlying decision (issued 22 November 2024): patent EP 2 568 724 infringed; injunction, recall, disclosure and provisional damages of EUR 250,000 ordered; invalidity counterclaim and FRAND counterclaim dismissed; defendants to bear costs; value in dispute set at over EUR 50 million. |
| 2025-02-06 | UPC_CFI_210/2023 | Mannheim LD | Counterclaim for revocation | Revocation merits | Infringed | The Mannheim Local Division (Judge-rapporteur Prof. Dr. Tochtermann) published the redacted version of its decision of 22 November 2024 concerning EP 2 568 724 (SEP/FRAND). The decision found infringement by OPPO and OROPE and ordered: (I) a pan-European cease and desist; (II)–(IV) recall and destruction; (V) damages liability from 17 December 2014 (for the predecessor's rights) and from 29 July 2016 (for Panasonic); (VI) EUR 250,000 preliminary damages; (VII) residual infringement claims dismissed. The counterclaim for revocation (B) was dismissed. The FRAND counterclaim (C) was dismissed. Defendants bear the costs of the proceedings. |
| 2025-02-05 | UPC_APP_3212/2025 | Munich LD | Generic application | motionName.jurisdictional | Procedural only | The Munich Local Division allowed Ericsson's preliminary objection against Motorola Mobility LLC's counterclaim for revocation of EP 3 780 758, rejecting the counterclaim as inadmissible because the same action between the same parties on the same patent had already been brought before the same division, which is prohibited under Art. 33(2) UPCA by analogy. |
| 2025-02-05 | UPC_APP_368/2025 | Munich LD | Generic application | motionName.jurisdictional | Procedural only | The Munich Local Division allowed a preliminary objection raised by Ericsson against Motorola's counterclaim for revocation, holding that a preliminary objection can be raised against a counterclaim for revocation and that Art. 33(2) UPCA applies when the same parties bring the same action twice before the same division. |
| 2025-02-05 | ACT_597277/2023 | Munich LD | Infringement Action | Procedural | Procedural only | The Munich Local Division issued a scheduling order summoning the parties to the oral hearing on 11 February 2025 in the infringement action (with counterclaim for revocation) brought by Edwards Lifesciences against Meril entities concerning EP 3 669 828. |
| 2025-02-05 | UPC_APP_4027/2025 | Paris LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | Paris Local Division order (judge-rapporteur Lignières) on Hurom Co.'s application for further exchanges of written pleadings (R. 36 RoP) in infringement proceedings against NUC Electronics entities and Warmcook concerning EP 3 155 936. The court addresses Hurom's request that sections of its rejoinder be declared admissible, or alternatively that further pleadings be permitted. The order likely dismisses the application, deferring any inadmissibility issues to the merits, given the defendants' last-word principle in infringement proceedings. No substantive ruling. |
| 2025-02-04 | UPC_CFI_218/2023 | Mannheim LD | Application Rop 265 | — | Settled | The Mannheim Local Division issued a procedural order confirming that Panasonic Holdings Corporation (claimant) and the Xiaomi entities and related defendants had reached a settlement, resulting in the mutual withdrawal of both the infringement action and the defendants' joint counterclaim for revocation concerning EP 3 069 315. Costs were settled by agreement between the parties; no court cost decision was required. |
| 2025-02-03 | UPC_APP_67470/2024 | Mannheim LD | Application Rop 265 | Procedural | Settled | The Mannheim Local Division allowed the withdrawal of both the infringement action and the revocation counterclaim by Panasonic and OPPO respectively following a settlement by the parties after the main judgment was issued; proceedings were declared closed with each party bearing its own costs. |