| 2024-04-17 | APL_12116/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | The UPC Court of Appeal upheld the President of the Court of First Instance's refusal to change the language of proceedings from German to English in 10x Genomics' provisional measures application against Curio Bioscience concerning EP2697391, finding that the interests of the parties were balanced and the defendant's position was the decisive factor. |
| 2024-04-17 | APL_12116/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | Court of Appeal set aside the President of the CFI's order refusing to change the language of proceedings from German to English in the provisional measures case before the Düsseldorf Local Division. The CoA held that, considering all relevant circumstances (Curio Bioscience is a US company with no connection to Germany, the patent was granted in English, the technology field predominantly uses English), the language of proceedings shall be English. The impugned order of 26 February 2024 was set aside and the language changed to English. |
| 2024-04-11 | UPC_APP_17551/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | Order of the Court of Appeal setting out the time period for filing a Statement of appeal under Rule 220.2 RoP where leave to appeal is granted in the impugned order itself. The Court held that the 15-day period runs from service of the order containing the grant of leave (whether in the impugned order itself or in a separate order). The appeal arises from Neo Wireless GmbH & Co KG challenging rejection of a preliminary objection in revocation proceedings concerning EP 3 876 490 brought by Toyota Motor Europe. |
| 2024-04-10 | UPC_CoA_404/2023 | Court of Appeal | Generic Order | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | Decision of the Court of Appeal dated 10 April 2024 concerning a request by a member of the public for access to written pleadings and evidence under R. 262.1(b) RoP in the Ocado v. Autostore proceedings. The CoA ruled on the composition of its panel (no technically qualified judges required for purely non-technical matters under Art. 9(1) UPCA), on the standard for public access requests (balancing public interest, confidentiality and personal data protection), and distinguished R. 262.1(b) requests from R. 262.3 applications. The order deals with procedural matters of public register access; no substantive patent ruling was made. |
| 2024-03-28 | UPC_APP_12137/2024 | Court of Appeal | — | Procedural | Procedural only | Order of the Court of Appeal (Panel 2) on an application by Curio Bioscience Inc. for restriction of access to confidential information under Rule 262A RoP. Curio sought to limit access to an unredacted document (CR-3) in the context of a pending language-change appeal. The Court held that a first-instance Rule 262A order restricting access to certain documents retains its force during appeal proceedings even if not directly challenged on appeal, and continues to govern access until the conclusion of the entire proceedings. Access to the confidential document was maintained restricted to specified persons. |
| 2024-03-28 | UPC_APP_12137/2024 | Court of Appeal | — | Procedural | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal (Second Panel) ruled that the confidentiality order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division on 11 March 2024 under R. 262A RoP (restricting access to document CR-3) continues to apply in the appeal proceedings, making Curio Bioscience's separate request for a confidentiality protection order in the appeal superfluous. The existing order covers 'outside these proceedings' broadly, including the appeal. No new order needed. |
| 2024-03-21 | UPC_CoA_486/2023 | Court of Appeal | Request for a discretionary review (RoP 220.3) | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | Order of the Court of Appeal (Panel 2) on a request for discretionary review under Rule 220.3 RoP. The appeal arose from a preliminary objection ruling in Huawei v. Netgear. The Court of Appeal laid down important procedural headnotes: (1) case management decisions of the judge-rapporteur cannot be directly appealed but must first be reviewed by the panel under Rule 333.1 RoP; (2) the judge-rapporteur's decision to deal with the preliminary objection in the main proceedings is such a case management decision; (3) rejection of a preliminary objection may be appealed with leave under Rule 220.2 RoP, optionally bypassing the panel review. The Court addressed the admissibility and scope of discretionary review. |
| 2024-03-11 | APL_4881/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal partially upheld Netgear's appeal against the Munich Local Division's order concerning deadlines following Huawei's extension of its infringement action to a second patent, setting the new time limit for Netgear's statement of defence (and any counterclaim for revocation) to 18 April 2024 instead of 11 March 2024, on the basis that due process requires defendants to receive the same full response period as for a new action. |
| 2024-03-11 | APL_4881/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | Order from the Court of Appeal (UPC_CoA_36/2024) on Netgear's appeal against the Munich Local Division's order permitting Huawei to expand its infringement action to add EP 3 678 321 alongside EP 3 611 989. The appeal was withdrawn during the interim conference after Huawei agreed to grant Netgear a three-month response period from the original first-instance panel order. The Court ruled on the principle that when a new patent is added by way of case expansion, the defendant must receive the same response period as if a new action had been filed. |
| 2024-03-11 | APL_5395/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal (second panel) set aside the Munich Local Division's order separating the action based on EP 3 678 321 and established that when a new patent is added to pending proceedings under R. 263 RoP, the defendant must receive the same response time as for a new action. |
| 2024-03-11 | APL_5395/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | Court of Appeal procedural order on an appeal against a first-instance order that had severed an amended/expanded infringement claim relating to EP 3678321 from the main action. The appeal concerned the deadline for filing a statement of defence following an amendment of the claim (R. 263 RoP). The Court of Appeal held that, as a matter of due process, when a new patent is added by way of an amended claim, the defendant must be given the same period to respond as would apply if a fresh action had been filed. |
| 2024-03-11 | UPC_CoA_335/2023 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | PI denied | Order of the Court of Appeal revoking the Munich Local Division's provisional measures order in favour of NanoString Technologies Inc. and NanoString Technologies Germany GmbH and NanoString Technologies Netherlands B.V. against President and Fellows of Harvard College and 10x Genomics, Inc. concerning EP 4 108 782 (multiplex in situ detection). The Court of Appeal found that the balance of probabilities indicated the patent was likely invalid (lack of inventive step) given prior art D6, such that a sufficient degree of certainty under Rule 211.2 RoP was lacking. Applicants bear costs. The order sets out important principles on patent claim interpretation, claim scope, and the standard for granting provisional measures. |
| 2024-03-11 | UPC_CoA_335/2023 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | PI denied | Court of Appeal rectification order correcting a slip in Headnote 2 of the 26 February 2024 order. The corrected headnote confirms that the patent claim is the decisive basis (not merely a starting point) for determining the scope of protection under Art. 69 EPC; the provisional measures application against NanoString was ultimately denied by the CoA as the patent was more likely than not invalid. |
| 2024-03-11 | UPC_CoA_335/2023 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | PI denied | Court of Appeal order (26 February 2024, German language version) denying provisional measures against NanoString. The CoA held that the patent was more likely than not invalid, laid down principles on patent claim interpretation under Art. 69 EPC, burden of proof in provisional measure proceedings, and formal requirements under R. 206 RoP. |
| 2024-03-11 | UPC_CoA_335/2023 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | PI denied | German-language rectification order (11 March 2024) correcting a slip in Headnote 2 of the CoA's 26 February 2024 provisional measures order, with corrected formulation of the patent claim interpretation principles under Art. 69 EPC. |
| 2024-02-22 | UPC_APP_7580/2024 | Court of Appeal | Application for an Order for expedition of an appeal (RoP225(e)) | motionName.appeal_decision | Dismissed | The UPC Court of Appeal dismissed Netgear's request to expedite the appeal and shorten the respondent's time period for filing a statement of response, finding the request too unspecified and insufficiently substantiated given the interests of Huawei and principles of due process in proceedings challenging a separation order. |
| 2024-02-22 | UPC_APP_7580/2024 | Court of Appeal | Application for an Order for expedition of an appeal (RoP225(e)) | motionName.appeal_decision | Dismissed | Order of the Court of Appeal (Panel 2) rejecting Netgear's application under R. 225(e) / R. 9.3(b) RoP to accelerate the appeal proceedings (against an order bifurcating the case under R. 302.1 RoP in Huawei v Netgear concerning EP 3 678 321). The request was filed on the last day of the time limits for the appeal response, and the court refused to shorten the respondent's (Huawei's) deadline to reply, weighing Huawei's interest in a fair hearing against the risk that the first-instance defence would need to be filed before the appeal outcome. |
| 2024-02-08 | UPC_CoA_404/2023 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal (Second Panel) ruled that a member of the public who requests access to the register under R. 262.1(b) RoP must be represented before the UPC, as such a person is in an adversarial situation that requires representation. The unrepresented respondent's Statement of Response was disregarded, and the respondent was given time to remedy the lack of representation. |
| 2024-01-11 | UPC_CoA_486/2023 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 333 | Procedural | Procedural only | Court of Appeal standing judge (11 January 2024) allowed Netgear's request for discretionary review, permitting Netgear to appeal the CFI judge-rapporteur's order of 11 December 2023, holding that the JR could not himself decide on the admissibility of a R. 333 review application of his own decision. The case was referred to the President of the CoA for assignment to a panel. |
| 2024-01-11 | UPC_CoA_486/2023 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 333 | Procedural | Procedural only | German-language version of the same CoA standing judge order of 11 January 2024 granting Netgear's request for discretionary review and permitting appeal of the JR's 11 December 2023 order. |
| 2024-01-10 | UPC_CoA_404/2023 | Court of Appeal | Application RoP262.1 (b) | Procedural | Dismissed | Order of the Court of Appeal dated 10 January 2024 refusing two applications to intervene in the appeal by Ocado against the public register access order. Mathys & Squire LLP and Bristows (Ireland) LLP applied to intervene, arguing they had parallel pending R. 262 applications before the Central Division that raised the same legal issues. The CoA rejected both applications as inadmissible for lack of legal interest in the result of the appeal: a party applicant whose separate R. 262 application is stayed pending the appeal's outcome does not have a sufficient legal interest under the UPC intervention rules, as the outcome of the appeal would not directly and necessarily affect their own applications. |
| 2023-12-20 | UPC_APP_594342/2023 | Court of Appeal | Application for an Order for expedition of an appeal (RoP225(e)) | motionName.appeal_decision | Dismissed | German-language Court of Appeal order (Second Panel) rejecting OPPO's request for shortening of the time period for the Statement of Response (R. 9.3(b) RoP) in the appeal concerning the language of proceedings for EP 3 096 315. Same outcome and reasoning as App_594327/2023 and App_594339/2023. Proceedings closed. |
| 2023-12-20 | UPC_APP_594342/2023 | Court of Appeal | Application for an Order for expedition of an appeal (RoP225(e)) | motionName.appeal_decision | Dismissed | English translation of the Court of Appeal order (Second Panel) rejecting OPPO's request for shortening of the time period for the Statement of Response in the appeal concerning the language of proceedings for EP 3 096 315. Same reasoning as App_594327/2023. Proceedings closed. |
| 2023-12-19 | UPC_APP_594339/2023 | Court of Appeal | Application for an Order for expedition of an appeal (RoP225(e)) | motionName.appeal_decision | Dismissed | The Court of Appeal (Second Panel) rejected OPPO's request for shortening of the time period for lodging a Statement of Response in the appeal concerning the language of proceedings (EP 2 568 724, misidentified in the filing as EP 3 096 315). Same outcome and reasoning as App_594327/2023: request filed on last available day, insufficient time for respondent, contrary to principles of proportionality and fairness. Proceedings closed. This is the German-language version of the order. |
| 2023-12-19 | UPC_APP_594339/2023 | Court of Appeal | Application for an Order for expedition of an appeal (RoP225(e)) | motionName.appeal_decision | Dismissed | English translation of the Court of Appeal order (Second Panel) rejecting OPPO's request for shortening of the time period for the Statement of Response (R. 9.3(b) RoP) in the appeal concerning the language of proceedings for EP 2 568 724. Same reasoning as App_594327/2023. Proceedings closed. |
| 2023-12-18 | UPC_APP_594327/2023 | Court of Appeal | Application for an Order for expedition of an appeal (RoP225(e)) | motionName.appeal_decision | Dismissed | The Court of Appeal (Second Panel) rejected OPPO's request for shortening of the time period for the respondent's Statement of Response in the appeal concerning the language of proceedings (EP 2 207 270). The CoA found that the request was filed on the last day of the available period, leaving insufficient time for the respondent, and that granting the request would be contrary to principles of proportionality, fairness and equity. The proceedings were closed. |
| 2023-12-18 | UPC_CoA_472/2023 | Court of Appeal | Application for an Order for expedition of an appeal (RoP225(e)) | — | Dismissed | The Court of Appeal rejected OPPO/OROPE's application to shorten the time limit for filing the respondent's statement of response in an appeal concerning the language of proceedings (Rule 323 RoP), pursuant to Rule 225(e) and 9.3(b) RoP. The application was filed on the last day of the time limit and did not adequately consider the respondent's (Panasonic's) right to adequate preparation time. |
| 2023-12-11 | UPC_CoA_404/2023 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | Case management order from the Court of Appeal dated 11 December 2023 in Ocado v. Autostore appeal concerning access to the statement of claim by a third party (GDPR-redacted respondent). The order corrects a CMS error incorrectly designating the Autostore companies as respondents (the respondent is the individual third party applicant). The CoA notes Ocado's submission that four defendants were never served and intends to address this later. The order invites parties to comment on whether R. 8 RoP (representation requirement) applies to the individual respondent who represents himself. |
| 2023-10-13 | UPC_CoA_320/2023 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal (German language version) addressed the date of service of the Statement of claim and term extensions. The Court held: (1) A Statement of claim can be validly served even if annexes are not simultaneously uploaded, provided the statement alone enables the defendant to assert its rights. (2) If a claimant fails to upload annexes simultaneously with the Statement of claim contrary to R.13.2 RoP, this in itself constitutes sufficient grounds for a defendant's request for term extension (without regard to the nature or content of the annexes). (3) The extension must compensate for the period during which the annexes were unavailable. This is a duplicate/German language version of the same decision published in English (see final-order-appeal-572929-eng_0.pdf). |
| 2023-10-13 | UPC_CoA_320/2023 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal (English language version) ruled on the date of service of the Statement of claim and term extensions for preliminary objection and statement of defence. Key holdings: (1) A Statement of claim can be validly served even without annexes, provided it enables the defendant to assert rights before the UPC courts. (2) Non-simultaneous upload of annexes contrary to R.13.2 RoP is itself sufficient for a defendant to request term extension, regardless of the content of the annexes. (3) The extension should equal the period during which annexes were unavailable after service. This is the English version of the same decision (see final-order-appeal-572929-002.pdf for German version). |