| 2024-06-19 | ACT_14945/2024 | The Hague LD | Application for provisional measures | Preliminary injunction | PI denied | Application for a preliminary injunction by Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. against Sibio Technology Limited and Umedwings Netherlands B.V. concerning EP 3 831 283 (wearable glucose monitoring device) was denied by The Hague Local Division. The court found it more likely than not that claim 1 of the patent would be held invalid for added matter (the claimed feature of a connector support being received through a distal-facing opening into a recess was not directly and unambiguously derivable from the application as filed). As a result, Abbott must bear defendants' costs. Value of the action set at EUR 4,000,000. |
| 2024-06-18 | UPC_APP_26610/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Generic application | motionName.jurisdictional | Procedural only | The President of the Court of First Instance denied Apple's application to change the language of the proceedings from German to English (the language of the patent) in the infringement action brought by Ona Patents SL at the Düsseldorf Local Division. The President found that the balance of interests did not favour a language change, given that Ona Patents (a medium-sized Spanish company) had legitimate reasons to file in German and the change would represent a significant drawback for the claimant while providing only a slight advantage to Apple. |
| 2024-06-18 | UPC_APP_26544/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Generic application | motionName.jurisdictional | Procedural only | Order of the President of the Court of First Instance on an application by Google Ireland Ltd and Google Commerce Ltd to change the language of the proceedings from German to English (R. 323 RoP) in an infringement action brought by Ona Patents SL concerning EP 2 263 098. The order deals with the procedural question of language selection, balancing the interests of both sides. |
| 2024-06-17 | UPC_APP_34190/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal allowed Audi's application to file additional written pleadings in the appeal proceedings correcting factual submissions by NST, applying Rules 35, 36 and 9.3(b) RoP mutatis mutandis to appeal proceedings. |
| 2024-06-17 | UPC_APP_34185/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal allowed Audi's application to file additional written pleadings to correct factual submissions by NST in Audi's appeal against the dismissal of its security-for-costs application. |
| 2024-06-17 | UPC_APP_34219/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal denied Volkswagen's request for leave to file an additional written pleading in its security-for-costs appeal, holding there was no genuine need to correct NST's factual submissions via an additional brief under R.36 and R.9.3(b) RoP. |
| 2024-06-17 | UPC_APP_34211/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | Order of the Court of Appeal on a request by Volkswagen AG to file additional written pleadings (R.36, R.9.3(b) RoP) in appeal proceedings concerning security for costs. The Court found no need to allow additional pleadings in the circumstances of the case. |
| 2024-06-17 | UPC_APP_36031/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | The Düsseldorf Local Division issued a procedural order permitting service of the statement of claim upon the Turkish defendant (Altech Makina) at a trade fair stand in Amsterdam under R. 271.5(a) RoP. The court held that a trade fair stand constitutes a temporary business address within UPC contracting member states, where service is permissible. |
| 2024-06-17 | UPC_APP_34189/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal (standing judge) dismissed Volkswagen AG's application to file additional written pleadings in appeal proceedings (UPC_CoA_218/2024) challenging a CFI order on security for costs in an infringement action by Network System Technologies LLC. Volkswagen sought to respond to certain facts in NST's statement of response. The Court held that R. 239.1 RoP makes R. 35 and R. 36 RoP applicable in appeal proceedings mutatis mutandis but found no sufficient grounds for allowing additional pleadings in the circumstances. |
| 2024-06-17 | UPC_CoA_221/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | — | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal ruled on Audi AG's request to file additional written pleadings (R. 36 RoP) in an appeal against a first-instance order denying Audi's application for security for costs (R. 158 RoP) in infringement proceedings brought against it by Network System Technologies LLC. The CoA held that R. 101-110 apply mutatis mutandis in appeal proceedings, and that R. 35 and R. 36 are therefore applicable on appeal. The Court granted Audi's request to submit a brief reply to correct facts stated by NST in its response. |
| 2024-06-16 | UPC_APP_30430/2024 | Munich LD | Application RoP262A | Procedural | Procedural only | The Munich Local Division judge-rapporteur granted Tesla's application for confidentiality protection under Rule 262A RoP, restricting access to internally designated confidential commercial information in Tesla's written submissions to named persons with legitimate interests. |
| 2024-06-16 | UPC_APP_30430/2024 | Munich LD | Application RoP262A | Procedural | Procedural only | Munich Local Division procedural order granting Tesla's application for confidentiality protection (R. 262A RoP) over internal company information contained in an additional written submission filed by Tesla outside the procedural timetable. The contested information (highlighted in grey) relates to intra-group corporate data. The order limits access to a maximum of three named, reliable persons on the claimant's side. |
| 2024-06-16 | UPC_CFI_201/2024 | Munich LD | Generic Order | — | Procedural only | The Munich Local Division granted a confidentiality protection order under Rule 262A RoP for documents in provisional measures proceedings, covering information in Confidential Exhibits SA-1 and SA-9 submitted by the defendants (Sumi Agro). The claimant (Syngenta) did not formally object. The order was issued in a new workflow due to a CMS malfunction in the original application. |
| 2024-06-13 | UPC_APP_35009/2024 | Mannheim LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | Order of the Mannheim Local Division granting time extensions for Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S., Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Odiporo GmbH and Shamrock Mobile GmbH in parallel infringement proceedings concerning EP 2 568 724 (Panasonic v Xiaomi). The extensions were granted due to the confidentiality regime established for FRAND-related submissions by the claimant. |
| 2024-06-12 | UPC_APP_34029/2024 | Munich LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | The Local Division Munich, in preliminary measures proceedings, granted a postponement of the oral hearing from 11 July to 12 July 2024 at the request of defendants whose counsel had a prior conflicting hearing, as the claimant ultimately agreed to the rescheduling. |
| 2024-06-12 | UPC_APP_29928/2024 | Munich LD | Generic application | motionName.jurisdictional | Procedural only | The President of the Court of First Instance granted Samsung's request to change the language of proceedings from German to English (the language in which the patent was granted), as Headwater Research did not object, in an infringement action based on EP 2 391 947. |
| 2024-06-06 | ACT_549585/2023 | Milan LD | Infringement Action | Procedural | Procedural only | Procedural order in infringement proceedings by Oerlikon Textile GmbH & Co. KG against Bhagat Textile Engineers (Milan Local Division). The judge-rapporteur set the provisional value of the case at EUR 750,000 for purposes of recoverable costs ceiling. Access to expert report obtained via preservation-of-evidence order was granted to both parties. Deadlines were set for submission of additional documents and a case summary ahead of the oral hearing scheduled for 27 September 2024. |
| 2024-06-06 | UPC_APP_27571/2024 | Munich LD | Procedural Order | Procedural | Procedural only | Munich Local Division procedural order on Tesla's R. 190.1 RoP request for production of board resolutions and power of attorney documents from Avago Technologies in infringement proceedings concerning EP 1 838 002. Tesla sought internal board resolutions authorising the transfer of patent title and granting of powers of attorney. The order addresses whether such internal corporate documents must be produced. |
| 2024-06-04 | UPC_APP_31209/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal (second panel) addressed Nera Innovations' request for partial withdrawal of its appeal against two of four Xiaomi defendants, establishing principles on when partial withdrawal of an appeal is permissible under R. 265 RoP and whether the other parties have legitimate interests in a full decision. |
| 2024-06-04 | UPC_APP_30470/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | motionName.appeal_decision | Dismissed | Court of Appeal (4 June 2024) rejected Daedalus Prime LLC's application to partially withdraw its appeal as against Xiaomi NL and Xiaomi DE only. The CoA held that those respondents had been served, had responded to the appeal, and had a legitimate interest in having the appeal adjudicated in relation to them, so partial withdrawal would impermissibly deprive them of their right to be heard. |
| 2024-06-04 | APL_9578/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Dismissed | Court of Appeal (4 June 2024) rejected Neo Wireless's appeal and confirmed that the opt-out filed by Neo Wireless LLC (USA) for all EPC states was invalid because it was not filed on behalf of all proprietors of all national parts of the patent (Neo Wireless GmbH & Co. KG held the German part). Art. 83(3) UPCA requires all proprietors of all national parts to lodge or authorise an opt-out. |
| 2024-06-04 | UPC_APP_27608/2024 | Hamburg LD | Procedural Order | Procedural | Procedural only | Procedural order in Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v. Tesla Germany GmbH / Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE (Hamburg Local Division) on a follow-up application for document production under R. 190.1 RoP. Defendants challenged the standing of claimant by disputing the validity of certain powers of attorney concerning ownership chain of the asserted patent. The order addresses the application for production of board resolutions underlying the claimant's chain of title. |
| 2024-06-03 | ACT_16267/2024 | Hamburg LD | Application for provisional measures | Preliminary injunction | PI denied | Hamburg Local Division dismissed Ballinno B.V.'s application for provisional measures (preliminary injunction) against UEFA, Kinexon GmbH and Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH in connection with EP 1 944 067 (method for detecting offside situations in football). The application was dismissed on urgency grounds: Ballinno had waited almost three months after acquiring knowledge of the alleged infringement before taking decisive investigative steps, which was incompatible with the urgency requirement under Art. 62(2) UPCA. Ballinno was ordered to pay costs including those of the protective letter. |
| 2024-05-30 | UPC_APP_22744/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Generic application | motionName.jurisdictional | Procedural only | Order of the President of the Court of First Instance granting Samsung's application to change the language of proceedings from German to English in the Headwater Research v Samsung infringement action (EP 3 110 069) before Düsseldorf Local Division under R. 323 RoP, allowing the use of English (the language in which the patent was granted). |
| 2024-05-28 | APL_3507/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | Order from the Court of Appeal (UPC_CoA_22/2024) dismissing Carrier Corporation's appeal against the Court of First Instance's refusal to stay revocation proceedings pending EPO opposition proceedings concerning BITZER Electronics' patent. The Court laid down key principles: UPC will generally not stay proceedings; the mere existence of parallel EPO opposition proceedings is insufficient to justify a stay; and a stay is only justified where a rapid EPO decision may be expected (R. 295(a) RoP). No rapid EPO decision was expected in this case, as the UPC hearing was scheduled for June 2024 and the EPO oral hearing for October 2024. |
| 2024-05-27 | UPC_CFI_498/2023 | Munich LD | Generic application | — | Procedural only | Procedural order setting the deadline for Defendants 1, 3, 4, and 6 (TCL entities) to file their Statement of Defence. The court declined to shorten the deadline as requested by Claimant NEC Corporation and set a joint deadline of 8 July 2024 for all defendants. |
| 2024-05-22 | UPC_APP_27157/2024 | Court of Appeal | Application for an Order for expedition of an appeal (RoP225(e)) | motionName.appeal_decision | Dismissed | The Court of Appeal rejected Texas Instruments' request to expedite appeal proceedings against a Munich Local Division order that had dismissed their application for security for costs, finding the request too unspecified and insufficiently substantiated. |
| 2024-05-22 | UPC_APP_29007/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal denied Audi AG's request to expedite its appeal against the dismissal of an application for security for costs in the NST v. Audi infringement action, finding the request too unspecified and insufficiently substantiated. |
| 2024-05-22 | UPC_APP_29005/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | Procedural | Dismissed | The Court of Appeal denied Volkswagen's request to expedite the appeal and shorten deadlines under Rules 225(e) and 9.3(b) RoP, finding the request too unspecified and insufficiently substantiated. |
| 2024-05-22 | UPC_APP_29006/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | Procedural | Dismissed | The UPC Court of Appeal denied Audi AG's request to expedite the appeal against the Munich Local Division's refusal to order security for costs from Network System Technologies LLC in infringement proceedings concerning EP1875683, finding the request too unspecific and insufficiently substantiated. |
| 2024-05-22 | UPC_APP_28997/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal denied Volkswagen's request to expedite its appeal against a first-instance order dismissing its application for security for costs, finding the request too unspecific and insufficiently substantiated. No expedition was granted. |
| 2024-05-22 | UPC_APP_27159/2024 | Court of Appeal | Application for an Order for expedition of an appeal (RoP225(e)) | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | Court of Appeal rejected Texas Instruments' application for expedition of an appeal (Rule 225(e) and Rule 9.3(b) RoP) in UPC_CoA_225/2024, an appeal against a first-instance order dismissing security for costs applications. Texas Instruments failed to explain why there was a particular interest in shortening NST's 15-day response deadline, and the further request to shorten all future deadlines was too unspecified. |
| 2024-05-22 | UPC_CoA_220/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | — | Dismissed | Court of Appeal denied Volkswagen's request for expedition of the appeal (R.225(e) and R.9.3(b) RoP) against a first-instance order refusing security for costs. The Court held that the request was too unspecified and insufficiently substantiated to justify shortening future time periods at this stage of proceedings. |
| 2024-05-22 | UPC_CoA_221/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | — | Procedural only | Court of Appeal denied Audi's request to expedite the appeal and shorten deadlines (Rule 225(e), Rule 9.3(b) RoP) in its appeal against the dismissal of its security for costs application. The request was denied as too unspecified and insufficiently substantiated. |
| 2024-05-22 | UPC_CoA_224/2024 | Court of Appeal | Application for an Order for expedition of an appeal (RoP225(e)) | — | Dismissed | Court of Appeal denied Texas Instruments' request for expedition of the appeal (R.225(e) and R.9.3(b) RoP) against a first-instance order refusing security for costs. The request was too unspecified and insufficiently substantiated to justify shortening deadlines at this stage. |
| 2024-05-21 | ACT_589207/2023 | Munich LD | Application for provisional measures | Preliminary injunction | PI granted | The Munich Local Division granted Dyson Technology Ltd. a preliminary injunction against SharkNinja Germany GmbH and SharkNinja Europe Limited, prohibiting them from offering or supplying certain handheld vacuum cleaners (models IW3611EU, IW3611DE, IW1611EU, IW1611DE, BU1120DE) in Germany and France that infringe EP 2 043 492, subject to Dyson commencing main proceedings within 31 calendar days or 20 working days. |
| 2024-05-21 | UPC_APP_22767/2024 | Paris LD | Generic application | motionName.unclear | Procedural only | The Paris Local Division issued a very brief procedural order in the Arm Limited infringement proceedings; the content is minimal with no substantive ruling recorded in the excerpt. |
| 2024-05-16 | UPC_APP_4931/2024 | Mannheim LD | Procedural Order | Procedural | Procedural only | The Mannheim Local Division issued a procedural order on OPPO's application for document disclosure under R. 190 RoP in SEP/FRAND infringement proceedings, addressing the production of Panasonic's licence agreements relevant to assessing FRAND compliance. |
| 2024-05-16 | UPC_CFI_372/2023 | Paris CD | Revocation Action | Procedural | Costs only | The Paris Central Division addressed allocation of costs following the patent proprietor's immediate surrender of EP 3 170 639 B1 in response to a revocation action, holding it is generally unfair to impose costs on a proprietor who immediately surrenders when confronted with new prior art, particularly where no prior warning notice was required. |
| 2024-05-15 | UPC_APP_15573/2024 | The Hague LD | Application RoP262A | Procedural | Procedural only | The Hague Local Division judge-rapporteur issued a confidentiality order under Rule 262A RoP, classifying experimental data relating to allegedly infringing Bioo Panels as confidential, granting access only to one named natural person per party plus legal representatives, subject to a proportionate penalty for breach. |
| 2024-05-15 | UPC_APP_15573/2024 | The Hague LD | Application RoP262A | Procedural | Procedural only | The Hague Local Division granted Arkyne Technologies' (Bioo) application for a confidentiality order under R.262A RoP, protecting experimental data in the counterclaim proceedings, but limited access to one natural person within Plant-e and ordered that a proportionate penalty be assessed on a case-by-case basis for each breach. |
| 2024-05-15 | UPC_APP_23209/2024 | Hamburg LD | Generic application | Procedural | Costs only | Final order from the Hamburg Local Division (UPC_CFI_151/2024) in Ballinno's application for provisional measures against UEFA and Kinexon entities concerning EP 1 944 067. The Court addressed defendants' applications regarding: (1) allocation of a technically qualified judge — denied; (2) security for costs of EUR 200,000 — granted at EUR 56,000 (by deposit or bank guarantee), in line with the ceiling for recoverable costs for a EUR 500,000 value of proceedings; and (3) setting of the value in dispute at EUR 2,000,000 — addressed. |
| 2024-05-14 | UPC_APP_23193/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Amend Document | Procedural | Procedural only | Order by Düsseldorf Local Division (UPC_CFI_457/2023, 14 May 2024) allowing Dolby International AB's unconditional restriction of its infringement claim under R. 263.3 RoP to exclude HP computers equipped with NVIDIA GPU-based HEVC video decoding. The court characterised the restriction as an unconditional and always-permissible limitation of the claim under R. 263.3 RoP (not merely a clarification), and noted that the defendants' intervention invitation application appeared to have become moot. |
| 2024-05-14 | UPC_CFI_241/2023 | Milan LD | Generic Order | Procedural | Procedural only | Procedural order (in Italian) requiring parties to submit a summary of issues to be addressed at the forthcoming Interim Conference and to notify the court of attendees' names and capacities. The order also addressed the balance between the transparency principle and the right to protect confidential information, particularly regarding costs information in a case where a settlement may have been under discussion. |
| 2024-05-13 | UPC_APP_26281/2024 | Munich LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | Order by Munich Local Division (UPC_CFI_127/2024, 15 May 2024) on Motorola Mobility Germany GmbH and Digital River Ireland Ltd.'s application to extend the preliminary-objection deadline (R. 19.1, R. 9.3(a) RoP) to align with the deadline for US-served co-defendants, citing procedural economy in a patent infringement action by Headwater Research LLC for EP 3 110 072. |
| 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. |
| 2024-05-10 | UPC_APP_3514/2024 | Paris CD | Preliminary objection | motionName.jurisdictional | Dismissed | The Paris Central Division dismissed a preliminary objection by Tandem Diabetes Care contesting the UPC's jurisdiction based on an alleged violation of a standstill agreement before filing the revocation action by Roche Diabetes Care, ruling that breach of a standstill agreement does not constitute grounds for challenging the court's jurisdiction. |
| 2024-05-10 | UPC_APP_23523/2024 | Paris CD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | Paris Central Division procedural order (judge-rapporteur Haedicke) in a revocation action by CEAD B.V. and CEAD USA B.V. against BEGO Medical GmbH concerning EP 2 681 034 B1, addressing a request by CEAD (as claimant in the Dutch-language revocation proceedings) for simultaneous interpretation into Dutch (alternatively English) at the interim hearing (29 May 2024) and oral hearing (23 August 2024). The court rejected the request for simultaneous interpretation under R. 109 VerfO, holding that the right to be heard is sufficiently protected where the party's authorised representative is fluent in the language of the proceedings (German). Simultaneous interpretation at the parties' own cost, however, was permitted. |
| 2024-05-09 | UPC_APP_26104/2024 | Munich LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | Munich Local Division procedural order (judge-rapporteur Zigann) in infringement proceedings by NEC Corporation against TCL/TCT Mobile entities concerning EP 3 057 321. The order addresses a request by defendants to compel the claimant to supply the HEVC standard version referenced in the statement of claim. The order likely resolves this document disclosure issue procedurally. No substantive ruling on infringement or validity. |