| 2024-12-19 | UPC_CoA_523/2024 | Court of Appeal | Procedural Order | Procedural | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal (Second Panel) ruled on admission of new evidence in the appeal by Sumi Agro against the Munich Local Division's provisional measures order in favour of Syngenta concerning EP 2 152 073. Exhibit SA17 (new pages from a publication already partly submitted at first instance) was disregarded as Sumi Agro failed to justify why these additional pages could not have been submitted earlier. Syngenta's Exhibits FF28-29 were also disregarded. However, Syngenta's Exhibits FF24-27 (concerning a possibly changed version of the contested Kagura product) were admitted, as they related to new evidence about a product modification. |
| 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. |
| 2024-11-21 | 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. |
| 2024-10-15 | CoA_PC 01/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | — | Dismissed | Court of Appeal declared Photon Wave's appeal inadmissible. The CoA held that leave to appeal under R.220.2 RoP (other than together with an appeal against the final decision) must be expressly granted by the Court of First Instance and cannot be presumed. As no express leave to appeal was granted by the Paris Local Division, the appeal was inadmissible. |
| 2024-10-15 | CoA_PC 01/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | — | Dismissed | Court of Appeal declared Photon Wave's appeal inadmissible. The Court held that leave to appeal under R. 220.2 RoP must be expressly granted by the Court of First Instance and cannot be presumed. Since the Paris Local Division had not expressly granted leave to appeal the procedural order of 24 July 2024, the appeal was inadmissible. |
| 2024-10-04 | UPC_CoA_2/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Costs only | Order from the Court of Appeal dated 4 October 2024 on costs following Meril's submission of an undertaking (Unterlassungs- und Verpflichtungserklärung) to Edwards Lifesciences, which resulted in dismissal of the preliminary injunction action. The CoA held that, where a defendant undertakes to comply with the claimant's requests after proceedings have commenced, the claimant is generally to be regarded as the prevailing party under Art. 69(1) UPCA, without any need to examine the merits at the time of the undertaking. The undertaking itself implies that the claimant's requests were satisfied. Accordingly, Meril was ordered to bear the costs of proceedings. |
| 2024-10-04 | UPC_CoA_2/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Costs only | The Court of Appeal dismissed Meril's appeal against the Munich Local Division's costs order following a cease-and-desist undertaking by Meril. The Court held that Edwards was the successful party because Meril's cease-and-desist undertaking fulfilled the substance of Edwards' requests after proceedings commenced. Where a defendant gives a cease-and-desist undertaking during proceedings, the claimant is generally the successful party for costs purposes, and there is no need to examine admissibility and merits at the time of the undertaking. |
| 2024-09-17 | APL_26889/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | Court of Appeal ordered the stay of UPC revocation proceedings (UPC_CFI_484/2023) in Mala Technologies Ltd. v Nokia Technology GmbH concerning EP 2 044 709 (German part only), pending the outcome of parallel German Federal Patent Court/BGH revocation proceedings initiated by Nokia Solutions. Applying Art. 30 Brussels I recast Regulation, the court found that the causes of action in both proceedings are almost identical, the parties closely related, and the German proceedings at a more advanced stage. Mala's request for stay was upheld, and Nokia Technology's auxiliary request to limit the stay to the German part was rejected as moot. |
| 2024-09-05 | APL_12739/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Dismissed | Court of Appeal (5 September 2024) dismissed Advanced Bionics' appeal against the CFI's refusal to transfer their infringement case to the Central Division. The CoA confirmed that joinder under R. 340 RoP cannot result in transfer to a different chamber outside Art. 33 UPCA, and that Art. 33(5) UPCA does not allow transfer of an infringement action to the Central Division without the consent of both parties. |
| 2024-09-05 | APL_24598/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | Dismissed | Court of Appeal (5 September 2024) dismissed Advanced Bionics' appeal against the CFI's refusal to change the language of proceedings from German to English (the patent language). The CoA confirmed that the domicile of parties in a German-speaking country was a decisive factor against granting a language change, and clarified that Art. 49(5) UPCA does not require the language change request to be included in the statement of defence. |
| 2024-09-05 | UPC_CoA_207/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | — | Dismissed | The Court of Appeal dismissed Advanced Bionics' appeal against the President of the Court of First Instance's refusal to change the language of proceedings from English (language of the patent) to German in the infringement action before the Mannheim Local Division. The Court held that the parties' domicile in countries where the language chosen by the claimant is an official language is an important factor weighing against a language change. The application was not required to be included in the Statement of Defence (Art. 49(5) UPCA; R. 323.3 RoP). |
| 2024-09-05 | UPC_CoA_106/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | — | Dismissed | The Court of Appeal dismissed Advanced Bionics' appeal against the Mannheim Local Division's order refusing to refer the infringement action to the Central Division via a connection joinder (R. 340 RoP). The Court held that a connection joinder under R. 340 RoP cannot result in referral to another division beyond the possibilities provided in Art. 33 UPCA, and Art. 33 UPCA does not permit referral of an infringement action from a local division to the central division without the agreement of the parties. |
| 2024-09-03 | UPC_CoA_188/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | — | Procedural only | Order of the Court of Appeal dated 3 September 2024 on AYLO entities' appeal against the Mannheim Local Division's rejection of their preliminary objections in infringement proceedings brought by DISH Technologies and Sling TV regarding EP 2 479 956. The CoA dismissed AYLO's appeal and upheld the CFI's rulings on: (1) international jurisdiction of the UPC (Art. 7(2) Brussels I in conjunction with Art. 71b(1)) – jurisdiction exists if the patent has effect in at least one Contracting Member State and alleged internet-accessible services can cause damage there; (2) competence of the Mannheim Local Division; (3) rejection of the parallel national proceedings argument under Art. 30(2) Brussels I; and (4) confirmation that the list of preliminary objections under R. 19.1 RoP is exhaustive – abuse of process and manifest inadmissibility are not recognised as unwritten preliminary objections. |
| 2024-09-03 | UPC_CoA_188/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | — | Dismissed | The Court of Appeal dismissed AYLO's appeal against the Munich Local Division's rejection of AYLO's preliminary objection challenging UPC jurisdiction and competence. The Court of Appeal upheld UPC jurisdiction under Art. 7(2) Brussels I recast and Art. 71b(1) in conjunction with Art. 33(1)(a) UPCA, holding that jurisdiction exists where a European patent has effect in at least one Contracting Member State and alleged damage may occur there (including via internet access). The list of preliminary objections in R. 19.1 RoP is exhaustive; defences based on abusive procedural conduct and manifest lack of foundation are not admissible as preliminary objections. |
| 2024-08-22 | UPC_CoA_364/2024 | Court of Appeal | Petition for review of Registrar's decision | motionName.registrar_review | Procedural only | Order of the President of the Court of Appeal on a petition for review of the Registrar's decision refusing registration of an applicant in the list of UPC representatives. The applicant (anonymized) argued he met the requirements of Art. 48(2) UPCA as a European patent attorney and German patent attorney (Patentanwalt). The dispute centred on whether his training in the 1997-1998 'Munich Year' (Münchner Jahr) was equivalent to the 'Law for Patent Attorneys' course at FernUniversität Hagen required under the transitional provisions of the EPLC Rules. The President of the Court of Appeal reviewed the Registrar's two refusal decisions. |
| 2024-08-22 | UPC_CoA_364/2024 | Court of Appeal | Petition for review of Registrar's decision | motionName.registrar_review | Dismissed | The President of the Court of Appeal dismissed the petition for review of the Registrar's decision refusing to enter the applicant (anonymised) on the list of UPC representatives under Art. 48(2) UPCA. The applicant held a DPMA 'Patentassessor' qualification and claimed his 'Munich Year' training was equivalent to the FernUniversität Hagen 'Law for Patent Attorneys' course listed in Rule 12.1(a)(ii) EPLC Rules. The President found no evidence that the curriculum and examination requirements were identical, and rejected the equivalence argument. |
| 2024-08-08 | UPC_APP_44530/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal ruled that service of written pleadings must be effected through the Court's electronic CMS and that prior communication via Germany's beA (besonderes elektronisches Anwaltspostfach) does not constitute effective service under R.278.1 RoP. |
| 2024-07-30 | UPC_APP_43889/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal rejected Alexion Pharmaceuticals' request to expedite the appeal against the Hamburg Local Division's refusal to grant provisional measures against Amgen, holding that the circumstances were not sufficiently urgent to justify shortening the time period for the respondents to lodge their statement of response. |
| 2024-07-26 | UPC_APP_42818/2024 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 223 | Procedural | Procedural only | Order of the President of the Court of Appeal (in Dutch) in OrthoApnea / Vivisol v [anonymised] (EP 2 331 036). Defendants (appellants) applied for suspensive effect of an order refusing to extend the deadline for their rejoinder. The president found such an application may be admissible. The order addresses the procedural question of suspensive effect in the context of a refusal to extend a rejoinder deadline. |
| 2024-07-26 | UPC_APP_42818/2024 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 223 | Procedural | Procedural only | The President of the Court of Appeal (Klaus Grabinski, Standing Judge) rejected the defendants' (OrthoApnea S.L. and Vivisol B BV) request for suspensive effect of the appeal against the Brussels Local Division's decision not to extend the deadline for their Statement of Rejoinder beyond 1 August 2024 (Request I). The court found no manifestly erroneous decision by the CFI. Requests II, III and IV (which go to the substance of the appeal and the request for extension) were referred to the competent panel. |
| 2024-06-21 | UPC_CoA_227/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | — | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal ruled on Mala Technologies Ltd.'s appeal against the Paris Central Division's order on a preliminary objection, and its associated request to stay first-instance proceedings pending appeal. The CoA held that a request to stay first-instance proceedings under R. 21.2 RoP must be 'reasoned' in the written statement; submissions first made at an interim conference cannot substitute for that written reasoning. Mala's request to stay was accordingly rejected. The order also summoned the parties to an oral hearing by videoconference. |
| 2024-05-13 | APL_8/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | PI denied | Order by the Court of Appeal (UPC_CoA_1/2024, 13 May 2024) dismissing VusionGroup SA's (formerly SES-imagotag) appeal against the first-instance refusal of a preliminary injunction based on unitary patent EP 3 883 277 (electronic shelf labels). The CoA found that Hanshow's products do not fall within claim 1 because the antenna is not positioned further towards the front face than the circuit board as required; VusionGroup was ordered to bear costs. |
| 2024-05-13 | UPC_CoA_1/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | — | PI denied | Order of the Court of Appeal (Panel 1, with technical judges) dismissing the appeal by VusionGroup SA (formerly SES-imagotag SA) against the Munich Local Division's rejection of its application for provisional measures against Hanshow Technology and related entities regarding electronic shelf labels. The Court of Appeal, applying a balance-of-probabilities standard, found that none of Hanshow's contested products fell within the scope of protection of claim 1 of EP 3 883 277, because the antenna was not positioned more to the front of the label than the printed circuit board as required by the claim. The court held that claim features must always be interpreted in light of the claim as a whole. The appeal was rejected and the appellant was ordered to bear the costs of appeal. |
| 2024-04-03 | APL_588422/2023 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal rejected Juul Labs International Inc.'s appeal against first-instance orders allowing NJOY Netherlands B.V. to rectify the name of a party (Juul Labs Inc. to Juul Labs International Inc.) in five sets of revocation proceedings, and held that no costs order would be issued on appeal since the appeal was not a final decision concluding the action. |
| 2024-04-03 | APL_588423/2023 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | Order by the Court of Appeal (Panel 1a, 3 April 2024) in five consolidated appeals (UPC_CoA_433-438/2023) upholding first-instance orders allowing NJOY Netherlands B.V. to rectify the name of the defendant in five revocation actions from Juul Labs, Inc. to Juul Labs International, Inc. (the registered patent proprietor). The CoA also clarified that costs are not awarded at appellate stage when the CoA decision does not conclude the action (R. 242.1 RoP). |
| 2024-04-03 | APL_588426/2023 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Dismissed | Court of Appeal order rejecting Juul Labs International's appeal against the Court of First Instance order allowing rectification of the defendant's name in five revocation actions filed by NJOY Netherlands B.V. (originally naming Juul Labs, Inc. instead of registered proprietor Juul Labs International, Inc.). The Court of Appeal held the rectification was permissible since the appellant was not unreasonably prejudiced. No costs order was made in this interlocutory appeal, to be deferred to the final merits decision. Appeal rejected. |
| 2024-04-03 | APL_588420/2023 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Dismissed | Court of Appeal dismissed Juul Labs International Inc.'s appeal against five first-instance orders allowing NJOY Netherlands B.V. to rectify the incorrectly stated defendant name in five revocation actions (EP 3 498 115, EP 3 504 990, EP 3 504 989, EP 3 504 991, EP 3 430 921). The court held that despite the naming error, it should have been clear to the appellant that the actions were directed against it as the registered proprietor. No cost order was made as the appeal did not conclude the revocation actions. |
| 2024-04-03 | UPC_CoA_437/2023 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | — | Dismissed | The Court of Appeal (Panel 1a) dismissed the appeal by Juul Labs International Inc. against the Paris Central Division's order rectifying the party name in five revocation actions brought by NJOY Netherlands B.V. The CoA held that despite the incorrect original naming of Juul Labs Inc. (instead of Juul Labs International Inc., the registered patent proprietor), the appellant should have known the actions were directed against it, and the rectification did not cause unreasonable prejudice. No costs order was made in the appeal as it did not constitute a final decision concluding the actions. |
| 2024-03-14 | ORD_16795/2024 | Court of Appeal | Decision By Default | Default judgment | Dismissed | The President of the Court of Appeal declared the Abbott entities' appeal inadmissible from the outset because it was brought without leave to appeal as required under Rule 220.2 RoP, and noted that an inadmissible appeal cannot be withdrawn. |
| 2024-03-14 | ORD_16788/2024 | Court of Appeal | Decision By Default | Default judgment | Dismissed | President of the Court of Appeal rejected Abbott entities' appeal as inadmissible. Abbott had filed an appeal under R. 220.2 RoP against a confidentiality order from the Paris Local Division without leave having been granted. The judge-rapporteur of the first instance had explicitly stated leave was not granted. Without leave, the appeal was inadmissible from the outset and therefore could not be withdrawn; the President declared the appeal rejected. |
| 2024-03-11 | ORD_12169/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic Order | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | Court of Appeal order correcting an error in headnote 2, paragraph 3 of a prior order (26 February 2024) concerning the interpretation of patent claims in provisional measures proceedings between 10x Genomics/Harvard (applicants) and NanoString Technologies (respondents). The correction clarifies the principles for claim scope interpretation under Art. 69 EPC: the claim is the decisive basis (not merely a guideline); description and drawings are always used as explanatory aids; the claim is to be construed from the perspective of the skilled person; the aim is to combine appropriate protection with sufficient legal certainty. |
| 2024-02-26 | UPC_APP_6601/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal of the UPC refused to stay the provisional measures appeal proceedings despite NanoString's Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing in the US. The court held that even if the insolvency threshold under R. 311.1 RoP was met, no stay was warranted where the oral proceedings were already concluded and the case was ready for decision, balancing procedural economy and cost efficiency under Art. 41(3) UPCA. |
| 2024-02-26 | UPC_APP_6601/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | Court of Appeal order declining to stay the provisional measures appeal proceedings following NanoString's insolvency (Chapter 11 bankruptcy under US law). The Court held that under R. 311(1) RoP, proceedings need not be stayed when a party is declared insolvent after the close of oral argument if the case is ready for decision, as principles of procedural economy, cost-efficiency and a fair balance between party interests (Art. 41(3) UPCA) support proceeding to judgment. US Chapter 11 proceedings qualified as insolvency under the applicable lex fori concursus. |
| 2024-02-15 | UPC_CoA_2/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic Order | Costs | Procedural only | Procedural order from the Court of Appeal (UPC_CoA_2/2024) on the appeal fee issue in provisional measures proceedings. The appeal concerned a Munich Local Division order declaring the PI application moot after Meril gave an undertaking and cease and desist declaration. The order addressed cost allocation and whether the appeal fee was properly calculated. |
| 2024-02-15 | UPC_CoA_2/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic Order | Costs | Costs only | Procedural order of the Court of Appeal addressing the appeal fee in an appeal by Meril GmbH and Meril Life Sciences against a Munich Local Division order in provisional measures proceedings brought by Edwards Lifesciences Corporation regarding EP 3 763 331 (crimping device for heart valve prostheses). After Meril submitted a cease-and-desist undertaking, Edwards accepted it and the case was resolved without a ruling. The first-instance court ordered Meril to bear costs up to EUR 200,000 and set the action value at EUR 1,500,000. Meril appealed. The Court of Appeal order concerned procedural aspects of the appeal fee payment. |