| 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. |
| 2024-07-29 | UPC_APP_36394/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal held that an application for cost assessment following an appeal order must be filed with the Court of First Instance (not the Court of Appeal), even when the costs relate solely to the appeal proceedings. |
| 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. |
| 2024-03-11 | 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. |
| 2024-01-18 | UPC_APP_100/2024 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 223 | Procedural | Procedural only | Order of the Court of Appeal (single judge) on an application by Meril GmbH and Meril Life Sciences for suspensive effect of their appeal against the Munich Local Division's costs order in the Edwards Lifesciences provisional measures proceedings (EP 3 763 331, crimping device for heart valve prostheses). After Meril submitted a cease-and-desist undertaking accepted by Edwards, the provisional measures action became devoid of purpose. The first-instance court ordered Meril to bear costs up to EUR 200,000 and set the value at EUR 1,500,000. Meril sought suspensive effect of the costs portion of the appeal. |
| 2024-01-18 | UPC_APP_100/2024 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 223 | Procedural | Procedural only | Signed version of the order of the Court of Appeal (single judge) on Meril's application for suspensive effect in the Meril v. Edwards Lifesciences appeal (EP 3 763 331, crimping device). This appears to be an earlier or signed copy of the same order as the previous file (Anordung aufschiebende Wirkung Meril-Edwards EN.pdf), issued on 18 January 2024 and concerning the same application for suspensive effect of Meril's appeal against the first-instance costs order. |