| 2025-10-02 | UPC_CFI_159/2024 | Mannheim LD | Infringement Action | Infringement merits | Infringed | The Mannheim Local Division found that NUC Electronics Europe GmbH and WARMCOOK infringed claim 1 of Hurom Co. Ltd.'s EP 2 028 981 (juice extractor) in Poland, Spain and the United Kingdom, ordering damages to be assessed and full disclosure of infringing sales; costs awarded to Hurom. |
| 2025-10-01 | UPC_CFI_808/2025 | Paris LD | Application for provisional measures | Procedural | Procedural only | The Paris Local Division issued a scheduling order for the oral hearing in Guardant Health's preliminary injunction application against Sophia Genetics entities based on four patents (EP 3 766 986, EP 3 470 533, EP 3 443 066, EP 3 591 073) relating to genomic analysis, after defendants failed to appoint representatives within 15 days of service. |
| 2025-10-01 | UPC_CFI_712/2025 | Dusseldorf LD | Application RoP262A | Procedural | Procedural only | The Düsseldorf Local Division (judge-rapporteur Dr. Schumacher) issued a confidentiality order under R. 262A RoP in the infringement proceedings brought by F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG and Roche Diabetes Care GmbH against A. Menarini Diagnostics entities concerning EP 1 962 668 B1 (glucose sensor). |
| 2025-10-01 | UPC_CoA_681/2025 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal dismissed Bruker's appeal against the Munich Local Division's court fee assessment for Bruker's application for the determination of compensation (quantum proceedings) against 10x Genomics. The Court held that a request to lay open books (R. 131.1(c); R. 141–144 RoP) forms part of quantum proceedings, and the party filing it must pay both the fixed fee and the value-based fee for determination of damages, regardless of whether it is combined with a liability request. Bruker's argument that requiring a fee violated the principle of legal certainty was rejected. |
| 2025-10-01 | UPC_CFI_611/2025 | Mannheim LD | Preliminary objection | motionName.jurisdictional | Procedural only | The Mannheim Local Division issued a procedural order on a preliminary objection (R. 19 RoP) filed by Grizzly Tools / Lidl entities against Robert Bosch's infringement action, ruling on international and territorial jurisdiction under Brussels Ia Regulation (Art. 71b) and holding that the preliminary objection is an internal procedural tool. |
| 2025-09-30 | UPC_CFI_688/2025 | Hamburg LD | Infringement Action | Infringement merits | Settled | The Hamburg Local Division confirmed the settlement between MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte and Zhejiang Nurotron Biotechnology / Nurotron Global SARL in the infringement action concerning EP 4 074 373, recording the settlement as an enforceable court decision under R. 365 RoP with the details remaining confidential. |
| 2025-09-30 | UPC_CFI_320/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Application Rop 265 | Procedural | Withdrawn | The Düsseldorf Local Division recorded Samsung's withdrawal of their counterclaim for revocation and application for cost decision following the court's 30 July 2025 decision dismissing the Headwater infringement action and revoking EP 3 110 069, with each party to bear own costs. |
| 2025-09-29 | UPC_CFI_496/2025 | Dusseldorf LD | Application Rop 265 | Procedural | Withdrawn | The Düsseldorf Local Division recorded Headwater Research LLC's withdrawal of its infringement action against Samsung Electronics entities concerning EP 3 110 072, with 60% of court fees reimbursed as the withdrawal occurred before closure of the written procedure. |
| 2025-09-26 | UPC_CFI_315/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Procedural Order | Procedural | Procedural only | The Düsseldorf Local Division issued a procedural order under R. 108 RoP in the infringement action by Labrador Diagnostics LLC against bioMérieux entities concerning EP 3 756 767 B1 (diagnostic testing apparatus). |
| 2025-09-26 | UPC_CFI_26/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Withdrawal (RoP265) | Withdrawal | Withdrawn | The Düsseldorf Local Division recorded the withdrawal by Headwater Research LLC of its infringement action (EP 3 110 069) against Samsung Electronics entities after the court had issued a decision on 30 July 2025 dismissing the infringement action and revoking the patent; both parties to bear own costs. |
| 2025-09-25 | UPC_CFI_323/2025 | Paris CD | Application Rop 365 | Procedural | Settled | The Central Division Paris (presiding judge Bessaud) homologated the settlement agreement between Scantrust SA and Advanced Track and Trace (ATT) in the revocation action concerning EP 2 364 485 (geometric code authentication method), recording the settlement as an enforceable court decision pursuant to R. 365 RoP. |
| 2025-09-25 | UPC_CFI_323/2025 | Paris CD | Generic Order | motionName.substantive_other | Settled | Duplicate of the Central Division Paris decision homologating the settlement between Scantrust and ATT in the EP 2 364 485 revocation proceedings (R. 365 RoP). |
| 2025-09-24 | UPC_CoA_887/2025 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | Court of Appeal (Judge-Rapporteur) granted Appellants' request for a two-week extension of the time limit for lodging their Statement of Grounds of Appeal, from 26 September 2025 to 10 October 2025, citing the exceptional circumstance that both lead attorney and lead patent attorney were unavailable due to professional constraints including an EPO oral hearing. |
| 2025-09-23 | UPC_CoA_755/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop313 | Procedural | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal (Panel 1a: Grabinski, Gougé, Blok) admitted Apple Inc. as an intervener in the appeal proceedings (UPC_CoA_755/2025 and UPC_CoA_757/2025) brought by Sun Patent Trust against VIVO concerning confidentiality protection orders under R. 262A RoP for EP 3 407 524 and EP 3 852 468. Apple was admitted because it is a party to the confidential licence agreements that VIVO's employees would have access to under the impugned orders, giving Apple a sufficient interest to intervene in support of Sun Patent Trust. Apple was given 15 days to file a Statement in intervention. |
| 2025-09-17 | UPC_CFI_479/2025 | The Hague LD | Application for provisional measures | Preliminary injunction | PI granted | The Hague Local Division granted provisional measures (preliminary injunction) against Defendants 2-5 (IBBH, BEGA Consult, BEGA BBK, NEG Novex) for infringement of EP 3 522 755 B1 (washing machine cabinet). The claim against Defendant 1 (Wasombouw) was settled. Injunctions ordered against specific infringing products (Laundreezy and Respekta Clara cabinets), with costs of EUR 56,000 plus court fees awarded against the defendants jointly. |
| 2025-09-17 | UPC_CFI_99/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Generic application | — | Costs only | Order from the Düsseldorf Local Division dated 17 September 2025 concerning reimbursement of court fees under R. 370.9 and R. 370.11 RoP. The infringement action (filed March 2024 by Ona Patents SL against Apple entities) and subsequently a counterclaim for revocation (filed August 2025 by Apple) were pending when the order was issued. The order deals specifically with court fee reimbursement procedural matters; no substantive ruling on infringement or validity was made. |
| 2025-09-16 | UPC_CoA_796/2025 | Court of Appeal | Action against the decision of the EPO (RoP97) | motionName.appeal_epo | Dismissed | Court of Appeal dismissed Bodycap's appeal against the EPO's decision to reject the request for unitary effect. The CoA held that the application to annul the EPO's decision was groundless: the one-month period to correct deficiencies in a request for unitary effect (R.7(3) UPR) is non-extendable and expressly excluded from re-establishment of rights under R.22(6) UPR. Furthermore, interlocutory revision by the EPO (R.91 RoP) was excluded because the action under R.97 RoP constitutes an expedited action falling under the exception in R.85(2) RoP. |
| 2025-09-16 | UPC_CoA_796/2025 | Court of Appeal | Action against the decision of the EPO (RoP97) | motionName.appeal_epo | Dismissed | French-language signed version of the Court of Appeal's decision in Bodycap v. EPO. Identical in substance to the English version: Bodycap's appeal was dismissed as groundless. The EPO's rejection of the unitary effect request was upheld because the one-month correction period is non-extendable and re-establishment of rights is excluded by R.22(6) UPR. |
| 2025-09-15 | ACT_16116/2024 | Munich LD | Infringement Action | Procedural | Procedural only | Procedural scheduling order by Munich Local Division (UPC_CFI_145-148/2024, 15 September 2025) summoning party experts to oral hearing on 14-17 October 2025 in four consolidated infringement proceedings by Sanofi entities against Accord Healthcare, STADA, Reddy Pharma/betapharm and Zentiva groups concerning EP 2 493 466. |
| 2025-09-15 | ACT_16120/2024 | Munich LD | Infringement Action | Procedural | Procedural only | Munich Local Division order (judge-rapporteur Zigann) following the second interim conference in consolidated infringement proceedings by Sanofi entities against Zentiva, STADA, Dr. Reddy's and Accord Healthcare groups concerning EP 2 493 466 (insulin glargine). The order confirms the oral hearing dates (14-17 October 2025), orders all four counterclaims to be heard together with separate handling of each infringement action, and gives organisational directions for the hearing. |
| 2025-09-15 | ACT_16112/2024 | Munich LD | Infringement Action | Procedural | Procedural only | The Munich Local Division issued a post-interim-conference procedural order in consolidated infringement actions by Sanofi (and successor entities) against multiple generic companies (Accord, STADA, Dr Reddy's, Zentiva) relating to EP 2 493 466 (UPC_CFI_145–503/2024 group). The order confirmed oral hearing dates (14–17 October 2025) and directed that the four counterclaims for revocation be heard together while each infringement action is heard separately. |
| 2025-09-15 | UPC_CFI_374/2024 | Munich LD | Infringement Action | Procedural | Procedural only | Munich Local Division issued a procedural order in Sanofi's infringement action relating to multiple sets of generic pharmaceutical defendants (Accord, STADA, Dr Reddy's, Zentiva) concerning EP 2 493 466. The order addressed case management scheduling matters across four related infringement actions. |
| 2025-09-12 | CC_65106/2024 | Mannheim LD | Counterclaim for revocation | Revocation merits | Infringed | Decision of the Mannheim Local Division finding infringement of EP 2 223 589 by Windhager GmbH (defendant 1) in Germany, Austria and Luxembourg, ordering an injunction, recall, removal from distribution channels, destruction of infringing products, information disclosure, and a declaration of damages liability. The revocation counterclaim was dismissed. Defendants bear costs. The decision establishes that supplying or offering all components of a patented product designed to be assembled without additional items at the point of use constitutes direct infringement under Art. 25(a) UPCA, and that selling even a single component of such a product when assembly is indicated also constitutes direct infringement. |
| 2025-09-08 | UPC_CFI_530/2025 | Paris LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | The Paris Local Division issued a procedural order aligning service deadlines for the multiple defendants in the infringement action filed by KEEEX SAS against Adobe, OpenAI, TruePic, the Joint Development Foundation Projects and the Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity (C2PA) concerning EP 2 949 070. The order addressed technical difficulties encountered in serving defendants located in Ireland and the USA under The Hague Convention, and set extended time limits for responses. |
| 2025-09-05 | UPC_CFI_202/2025 | Milan LD | Application Rop 365 | — | Settled | Milan Local Division confirmed the settlement agreement between Edwards Lifesciences and the respondents (Sintec and Value Med) in provisional measures proceedings concerning EP 3 646 825. The Court confirmed the settlement under Art. 79 UPCA and R.365 RoP, making it enforceable as a final decision. The request for reimbursement of 60% of court fees was dismissed. |
| 2025-09-05 | UPC_CFI_99/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Application Rop 265 | — | Withdrawn | The Düsseldorf Local Division granted Ona Patents SL leave to withdraw its patent infringement action against Apple entities concerning EP 2 263 098 B1. Simultaneously, the defendants withdrew their counterclaim for revocation. The parties agreed that each side bears its own costs, and no cost decision was issued. The proceedings were declared closed. |
| 2025-09-02 | APL_35616/2025 | Court of Appeal | Request for a discretionary review (RoP 220.3) | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | Court of Appeal (standing judge Gougé) order on CeraCon GmbH's request for discretionary review (R. 220.3 RoP) of the Mannheim Local Division's refusal to grant leave to amend its counterclaim for revocation against Sunstar Engineering Inc. concerning EP 4 108 413. The Court held that leave to amend under R. 263.2 RoP must be refused if any one of the exclusion criteria in (a) or (b) is met — the disjunctive test. The request for discretionary review was therefore dealt with under this principle. No substantive patent validity ruling. |
| 2025-09-01 | UPC_CoA_805/2025 | Court of Appeal | Request for a discretionary review (RoP 220.3) | — | Dismissed | The Court of Appeal (standing judge) dismissed Centripetal Limited's request for discretionary review (R. 220.3 RoP) of the Mannheim Local Division's refusal to permit further written pleadings (R. 36 RoP) in its infringement action against Keysight Technologies concerning EP 3 821 580. The request for review was denied because the impugned order was not manifestly wrong. |
| 2025-09-01 | UPC_CFI_258/2025 | Paris CD | Preliminary objection | motionName.jurisdictional | Dismissed | The Central Division Paris rejected Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd.'s preliminary objection requesting dismissal of Emporia UK and Ireland Ltd.'s revocation action as inadmissible under Art. 33(4) UPCA. Seoul Viosys argued that Emporia was a 'straw company' acting as a nominee for ex-pert klein GmbH (the defendant in parallel infringement proceedings before the Court of Appeal), and therefore constituted the 'same party'. The Court held that the 'straw company' theory has a legal basis in EU law and may be relevant under Art. 33(4) UPCA, but that mere coordination of litigation strategies between a distributor and its supplier does not constitute proof that one acts as a nominee for the other. |
| 2025-09-01 | UPC_CFI_848/2024 | Munich LD | Generic application | — | Procedural only | Procedural order from Munich Local Division dated 1 September 2025 granting KNAPP Smart Solutions GmbH's application for a 6-day extension of the deadline for its reply to the defence and the response to the counterclaim for revocation (including any patent amendment application) to 9 September 2025. The extension was justified by mutual vacation absences among involved persons and consented to by the defendant Becton Dickinson Rowa Germany GmbH. The order notes that irregularities in the CMS upload dates caused uncertainty about the exact deadline. |
| 2025-08-29 | ACT_44624/2024 | The Hague LD | Infringement Action | Infringement merits | Not infringed | The Local Division The Hague found that Maars' Horizon Products did not infringe City Glass's expired EP 1 651 838 (glazing system patent) because a key feature of the sole claim (feature 1.6 – self-locking mechanism) was not met; the revocation counterclaim was dismissed as the patent was held valid. Costs were agreed between the parties. |
| 2025-08-29 | ACT_19943/2025 | The Hague LD | Application for provisional measures | Preliminary injunction | PI denied | The Hague Local Division dismissed Cilag GmbH International's and Ethicon LLC's application for provisional measures (preliminary injunction) against RiVOLUTiON GmbH for alleged infringement of EP 3 689 262 (a staple cartridge patent for surgical staplers). The court found that the urgency requirement for provisional measures was not satisfied: Cilag had known or should have known by November 2024 (following a Bariatric Study result) of the potential infringement and related market risks, and had not filed the application promptly. The fact that a Sana group tender outcome became clearer later did not revive urgency as it was foreseeable. Cilag was ordered to pay EUR 80,000 as an interim costs award to RiVOLUTiON. Ancillary applications were also dismissed. |
| 2025-08-29 | UPC_CFI_500/2025 | Mannheim LD | Application Rop 360 | — | Costs only | Mannheim Local Division declared the provisional measures proceedings against Blankenhorn GmbH (defendant 2) terminated due to both parties agreeing the matter was resolved, and ordered Blankenhorn to bear the costs of that part of the proceedings. The Court found that Blankenhorn had not formally submitted to the claims before the application was served, and therefore bears costs. |
| 2025-08-26 | UPC_CFI_559/2025 | Munich LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | Procedural order from Munich Local Division dated 26 August 2025 staying the proceedings in an infringement action brought by Shangrao Xinyuan Yuedong Technology Development Co. against LONGi Solar and related entities regarding EP 3 297 043 B1, following a joint request by the claimant and defendants 1–4 due to ongoing settlement negotiations. Proceedings against defendant 5 (Thomas Seifert) were also stayed under R. 295(m) RoP pending possible inclusion in the settlement. |
| 2025-08-26 | UPC_CFI_362/2025 | Paris LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | Paris Local Division granted a three-week extension to Vivo entities for filing their Preliminary Objection and Statement of Defence in Sun Patent Trust's infringement action concerning EP 3 407 524, following the delay caused by confidentiality proceedings and the parties' voluntary agreement to grant access to unredacted files. |
| 2025-08-25 | UPC_APP_22894/2024 | Munich LD | Preliminary objection | motionName.jurisdictional | Procedural only | The Munich Local Division ruled that Qualcomm's preliminary objection challenging the validity of the withdrawal of an opt-out for EP 1 875 683 was inadmissible under Rule 19.1 RoP, and confirmed that the withdrawal of the opt-out was effective. |
| 2025-08-25 | UPC_APP_22897/2024 | Munich LD | Preliminary objection | motionName.jurisdictional | Dismissed | Preliminary objection by Qualcomm entities (Qualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Technologies Inc., Qualcomm Germany GmbH) challenging jurisdiction dismissed by judge-rapporteur. Defendants argued that the withdrawal of the opt-out of EP 1 552 399 by a UPC representative (Ms Huang) was invalid for lack of power of attorney. The court held that a registered UPC representative (Art. 48 UPCA, R. 5.3(b)(i) RoP) does not need a written mandate for opt-out withdrawal; formal requirements were met and the patent falls within UPC jurisdiction. Appeal against this decision was not allowed. |
| 2025-08-22 | UPC_CFI_248/2024 | Munich LD | Infringement Action | — | Patent amended | Munich Local Division found infringement of EP 2 387 547 (water filter cartridge patent) in an amended form and issued a permanent injunction against the defendants (AQUASHIELD entities). The patent was maintained in an amended form pursuant to auxiliary requests. The Court also ordered disclosure of information and declared defendants liable for damages from 23 May 2019. The infringement claim was partly dismissed and costs split 50/50. |
| 2025-08-22 | UPC_CFI_459/2023 | Dusseldorf LD | Generic application | — | Procedural only | Düsseldorf Local Division suspended the file access proceedings under R.262.1(b) RoP concerning the Tridonic/CUPOWER infringement case, pending ongoing settlement negotiations in the parallel main proceedings, with consent of all parties. |
| 2025-08-21 | ACT_13359/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Infringement Action | Procedural | Procedural only | Procedural order in infringement proceedings by Hartmann Packaging A/S against Omni-Pac entities (Düsseldorf Local Division) concerning EP 2 755 901 B1 (egg packaging). The order closes the interim procedure, provides the panel's preliminary view on the skilled person definition and provides the parties with feature analyses for claims 1, 5 and 6. Claimant cautioned about potential indefiniteness of its recall request and corrected the basis for preliminary damages. Parties given deadline until 28 August 2025 for uploads before oral hearing. |
| 2025-08-21 | UPC_CFI_248/2025 | Munich LD | Application RoP262A | — | Procedural only | The Munich Local Division issued a procedural order in Huawei's infringement action against MediaTek entities (Dimensity-series 5G chips, EP 3 905 840 B1) concerning a confidentiality protection application (R. 262A RoP) in relation to a request for production of licence agreements (R. 190 RoP). The order dealt with the treatment of confidential information submitted alongside a FRAND/compulsory licence antitrust defence. |
| 2025-08-21 | UPC_CFI_386/2024 | The Hague LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | The Hague Local Division dismissed Black Sheep Retail Products B.V.'s application to submit two physical objects (its old product and a new product) as exhibits in support of its rejoinder in infringement proceedings brought by HL Display AB concerning EP 2 432 351. The court found no explanation had been provided for why the objects could not have been filed earlier, notably with the Statement of Defence. |
| 2025-08-20 | APL_20125/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application to leave to appeal a cost decision (RoP221) | Costs | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal ruled on an application for leave to appeal a cost decision and on a preliminary reference request to the CJEU (Art. 267 TFEU), providing extensive guidance on when the UPC must refer questions of EU law, while rejecting expert klein's proposed preliminary reference questions as not requiring a referral. |
| 2025-08-20 | UPC_CoA_380/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application to leave to appeal a cost decision (RoP221) | — | Procedural only | Court of Appeal dismissed an application for leave to appeal against a cost decision (R.221 RoP) and refused requests to refer questions to the CJEU for preliminary rulings under Art. 267 TFEU. The Court clarified that while it must interpret its own law consistently with EU law, it cannot ask the CJEU to interpret the UPCA or the RoP directly. |
| 2025-08-15 | ACT_39810/2024 | The Hague LD | Infringement Action | Procedural | Procedural only | The Hague Local Division issued a procedural order under Rule 105.5 RoP following an interim conference, addressing scheduling, use of visual aids, and appointment of a technical judge for the oral hearing in an infringement action regarding EP 2 432 351. |
| 2025-08-15 | UPC_CoA_737/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 223 | — | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal dismissed RiVOLUTiON's application for suspensive effect of its appeal against a preliminary injunction granted by the Munich Local Division in favour of Cilag GmbH International. The court found no manifest error in the first-instance order, noting that the grounds of the decision were not yet available and therefore the required threshold for manifest error could not be met. |
| 2025-08-14 | UPC_CFI_387/2025 | Hamburg LD | Application for provisional measures | Preliminary injunction | PI granted | The Hamburg Local Division granted Dyson Technology Limited a preliminary injunction against Dreame International (HK) and related defendants for infringement of EP 3 119 235 (vacuum cleaner technology), including against an Authorised Representative as intermediary under Art. 63(1) UPCA. |
| 2025-08-14 | UPC_CFI_387/2025 | Hamburg LD | Application for provisional measures | Preliminary injunction | PI granted | Final order from the Hamburg Local Division dated 14 August 2025 granting a preliminary injunction in favour of Dyson Technology Limited against Dreame entities regarding EP 3 119 235 (vacuum cleaner hair attachment). The injunction was granted against defendants 1 (Dreame International Hong Kong), 2 (Teqphone GmbH) and 4 (Dreame Technology AB) for direct infringement of claims 1 and 11 within the UPCA territory, and against defendants 1 and 3 (Eurep GmbH) also with respect to Spain. The application was partially dismissed for remaining embodiments. Key rulings: (1) UPC has jurisdiction regardless of defendant's domicile for infringements in UPC member states; (2) an Authorized Representative in the EU under product safety regulations can serve as an anchor defendant under Art. 8(1) Brussels I; (3) such Authorized Representatives can be subject to injunctions as intermediaries under Art. 63(1) UPCA. A penalty of EUR 250,000 per case of non-compliance was imposed. Each party bears its own costs; court fees shared 50/50. |
| 2025-08-14 | UPC_CFI_135/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | Procedural order granting Dolby's application to file an additional written submission pursuant to Rule 36 RoP in the infringement action against Beko/Arçelik, as Dolby made the request before the judge-rapporteur intended to close the written procedure. |
| 2025-08-13 | ACT_36388/2024 | The Hague LD | Infringement Action | Infringement merits | Partially revoked | The Hague Local Division dismissed Winnow Solutions' infringement claims (EP 3 198 245, food waste monitoring system) and partially revoked the patent as granted, maintaining it only in the form of Conditional Request 3 (an amended version). The patent was found not infringed by Orbisk B.V. in the form maintained by the court. Winnow was ordered to pay 85% of Orbisk's costs (EUR 112,000 legal costs, EUR 15,000 court fee, EUR 5,500 expert costs = EUR 112,625 total). Orbisk's R.190 document production application was dismissed. |