| 2025-10-21 | UPC_CFI_499/2024 | The Hague LD | Infringement Action | Infringement merits | Infringed | The Hague Local Division issued a default judgment against the absent defendant finding infringement of Amycel's mushroom strain patent EP 1 993 350 (brown Agaricus bisporus), confirming the preliminary injunction, granting a permanent injunction, information orders, and an interim award of damages of EUR 50,000. |
| 2025-10-20 | UPC_CFI_559/2025 | Munich LD | Infringement Action | Infringement merits | Settled | The Munich Local Division approved the withdrawal of the solar panel infringement action following a comprehensive settlement between the claimant (Shangrao Xinyuan) and defendants 1-4 (LONGi group), and agreement by defendant 5, with no costs order and partial reimbursement of court fees at 60%. |
| 2025-10-20 | UPC_CFI_189/2024 | Paris CD | Revocation Action | Revocation merits | Patent amended | Decision of the Paris Central Division (Paris Seat) dated 20 October 2025 in the revocation action by Meril entities against Edwards Lifesciences Corporation and the counterclaim for infringement by Edwards regarding EP 4 151 181 B1 (prosthetic heart valve technology). The revocation action was rejected; however, the patent was maintained only in the form of Auxiliary Request 2 (amended). The infringement counterclaim was granted: Meril entities were found to infringe claims 1, 4, 6–12 as amended. Edwards was granted an injunction preventing Meril from all infringing acts with products according to those claims in Contracting Member States, with an exception for XL-size valves (exceeding 30 mm) which was denied on proportionality grounds. Meril was ordered to provide information on infringing products, recall and destroy infringing products, and publish the decision in five media. Damages are to be determined in separate proceedings. Costs of the counterclaim were borne by Meril jointly and severally; costs of the revocation action were shared (each party bears own costs given the patent amendment dynamic). |
| 2025-10-17 | UPC_CFI_693/2025 | Munich LD | Application for provisional measures | Preliminary injunction | PI denied | The Munich Local Division denied ONWARD Medical's application for provisional measures (preliminary injunction) against Niche Biomedical regarding EP 3 421 081 B1 (spinal cord stimulation), holding that the patent was likely invalid in its granted form and that auxiliary requests seeking provisional measures based on amended claim versions are generally inadmissible. |
| 2025-10-17 | UPC_CFI_676/2025 | Munich LD | Infringement Action | Procedural | Procedural only | The Munich Local Division granted the defendants' request to extend and align procedural deadlines (preliminary objection and statement of defence) for all Xiaomi defendants, to match the later statutory deadlines applicable to the Chinese defendants who accepted service voluntarily. |
| 2025-10-17 | UPC_CFI_624/2025 | The Hague LD | Application for provisional measures | Preliminary injunction | PI granted | The Hague Local Division granted Abbott Diabetes Care a preliminary injunction against Sinocare and A.Menarini Diagnostics regarding infringement of continuous glucose monitoring patent EP 4 344 633 (FreeStyle Libre technology), including information orders and delivery-up of infringing GlucoMen iCan products. |
| 2025-10-17 | UPC_CFI_515/2025 | Dusseldorf LD | Application for provisional measures | Preliminary injunction | PI granted | The Düsseldorf Local Division granted a preliminary injunction against Defendant 1 (Andreas Rentmeister e.K.) prohibiting the sale and distribution of ink cartridges allegedly infringing HP's patent EP 3 835 965 B1 on logic circuitry for replaceable print apparatus components, with penalty payments of up to EUR 250,000 per day. |
| 2025-10-17 | UPC_CFI_404/2025 | Munich LD | Generic Order | Costs | Costs only | The Munich Local Division issued a costs decision in favour of Edwards Lifesciences against Meril, ruling on the reasonableness and proportionality of claimed costs including travel expenses and multiple representatives, and awarding costs in proceedings of above-average complexity. |
| 2025-10-16 | UPC_CFI_941/2025 | Milan CD | Application RoP262.1 (b) | Procedural | Procedural only | The Central Division Milan, acting under R. 262.1(b) RoP, issued a final order on a third party's (Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP) application for access to redacted documents from the closed Insulet v. EOFLOW proceedings, balancing transparency principles with confidentiality. |
| 2025-10-16 | UPC_CFI_449/2025 | Dusseldorf LD | Generic Order | Procedural | Procedural only | The Düsseldorf Local Division deemed service of an application for provisional measures on a Chinese defendant (Zhuhai ouguan) to be good service under R. 275.2 RoP, after service via the Hague Convention failed due to the defendant being untraceable at the provided address. |
| 2025-10-16 | UPC_CFI_564/2024 | Munich LD | Counterclaim for revocation | Revocation merits | Withdrawn | The Munich Local Division permitted the withdrawal of the defendants' counterclaim for revocation of EP 2 387 547 under R. 265.1 RoP, after the main infringement/revocation proceedings had already been decided on 22 August 2025 and within the appeal period, with no costs order by agreement of the parties. |
| 2025-10-15 | UPC_CFI_774/2025 | Milan CD | Application For Costs | Costs | Costs only | The Central Division Milan decided a cost application in the Insulet v. EOFLOW proceedings, ruling that costs incurred after publication of the merits decision and enforcement costs fall outside the scope of R. 151 RoP and are not recoverable in the cost decision. |
| 2025-10-15 | UPC_CFI_541/2025 | Dusseldorf LD | Generic Order | Procedural | Procedural only | The Düsseldorf Local Division granted the claimant's application to serve the statement of claim on Defendant 2 (Wizart LLC) by an alternative method — delivery to the CEO's business address in Poland — after service at the registered address had failed. |
| 2025-10-15 | UPC_CFI_247/2025 | Mannheim LD | Infringement Action | Infringement merits | Withdrawn | Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. withdrew its infringement action against MediaTek Inc. and MediaTek Germany GmbH, and MediaTek Germany GmbH also withdrew its counterclaim for revocation, both with mutual consent, before the close of the written procedure. Neither party sought costs. Both Huawei and MediaTek Germany were each ordered a partial reimbursement of court fees (60%) under R.370.9(b)(i) and R.370.11 RoP. |
| 2025-10-15 | UPC_CFI_115/2025 | Dusseldorf LD | Generic Order | Revocation merits | Partially revoked | The Düsseldorf Local Division found that the infringement action failed (patent not infringed) while partially upholding the defendants' counterclaim for revocation: the patent EP 2 755 901 B1 (egg packaging) was revoked in part, with the counterclaim otherwise dismissed. Priority, inventive step, and equivalence were the key issues. |
| 2025-10-14 | UPC_CoA_699/2025 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | outcomeName.other | The Court of Appeal partly set aside a first-instance order on penalty payments in Fujifilm v Kodak. The court clarified the UPC penalty system under Rule 354.3 RoP, holding that a penalty order can be issued separately after the main decision. The court replaced the first-instance penalty orders with new orders: EUR 2,500/day from 23 July 2025 to 4 August 2025 and EUR 10,000/day thereafter for continued non-compliance by Kodak with orders on information, destruction, recall and removal from channels of commerce. |
| 2025-10-14 | UPC_CFI_807/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Application Rop 333 | Procedural | Procedural only | The panel dismissed the defendants' application for review of a case management order (R. 333 RoP) concerning an auxiliary request for claim amendment in a stroller swivel-locking device infringement action. The judge-rapporteur's procedural order was confirmed. |
| 2025-10-14 | UPC_CFI_135/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Generic Order | Procedural | Procedural only | The Düsseldorf Local Division issued an order cancelling the scheduled oral hearing in the Dolby v Beko/Arçelik infringement proceedings concerning EP 3 605 534 B1 (audio coding), due to the unavailability of one of the lead counsel for personal reasons. |
| 2025-10-14 | UPC_CFI_100/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Generic Order | Procedural | Procedural only | The Düsseldorf Local Division issued a further procedural order under R. 35 and 36 RoP in the Ona Patents v Google infringement proceedings (EP 2 263 098), addressing procedural steps in the case. |
| 2025-10-13 | UPC_CFI_362/2025 | Paris LD | Infringement Action | Procedural | Procedural only | The Paris Local Division (judge-rapporteur Camille Lignieres) issued a preliminary order refusing Vivo's request to postpone the deadline for filing the Statement of Defence pending the outcome of Vivo's preliminary objection on UPC jurisdiction in the SEP/FRAND case (EP 3 407 524). The Court held that R. 19.6 RoP provides that the filing of a preliminary objection should not slow down the main proceedings in the absence of exceptional circumstances. Since Vivo would raise a FRAND defence in any event, no exceptional circumstances were established. The Statement of Defence remained due on 28 November 2025. |
| 2025-10-13 | UPC_CFI_100/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Application Rop 333 | Procedural | Procedural only | The Düsseldorf Local Division issued a R. 333 RoP review order in the Ona Patents v Google infringement proceedings concerning EP 2 263 098 B1 (Wi-Fi positioning), addressing procedural aspects of the case management. |
| 2025-10-10 | UPC_CFI_280/2025 | Munich CD | Revocation Action | Procedural | Procedural only | The Central Division Munich (judge-rapporteur Kupecz) issued an order following the interim conference in the Wirplast v Vilpe revocation action concerning EP 2 649 380, permitting the defendant to re-order its auxiliary requests and setting procedural deadlines. |
| 2025-10-10 | UPC_CFI_688/2024 | Munich LD | Counterclaim for revocation | Revocation merits | Revoked | The same Munich Local Division decision as UPC_CFI_303/2024, in the associated counterclaim proceedings: EP 3 972 309 revoked for added matter and infringement action dismissed. |
| 2025-10-10 | UPC_CFI_448/2024 | Munich LD | Counterclaim for revocation | Revocation merits | Partially revoked | The Munich Local Division issued the same decision (same panel) as UPC_CFI_114/2024 for the associated counterclaim proceedings, finding infringement action dismissed and patent EP 3 215 288 partially revoked. |
| 2025-10-10 | UPC_CFI_386/2024 | The Hague LD | Infringement Action | Infringement merits | Infringed | The Hague Local Division found HL Display's European Patent EP 2 432 351 B1 (shelf divider system) valid and infringed (including indirect infringement) by Black Sheep Retail Products. The Court granted an injunction, ordered BSRP to cease infringing activities across all territories where the patent is in force. A counterclaim for declaration of non-infringement regarding a revised product was declared inadmissible. Long-arm jurisdiction was established for sales outside the Netherlands. |
| 2025-10-10 | UPC_CFI_303/2024 | Munich LD | Infringement Action | Infringement merits | Revoked | The Munich Local Division revoked Motorola Mobility LLC's EP 3 972 309 (telecommunications patent) in full after finding added matter beyond the parent application, and dismissed the infringement action against ASUSTek, ASUS Computer GmbH and ASUSTEK (UK); costs borne by claimant Motorola. |
| 2025-10-10 | UPC_CFI_114/2024 | Munich LD | Infringement Action | Infringement merits | Partially revoked | The Munich Local Division dismissed Heraeus Electronics' infringement action against Vibrantz GmbH concerning EP 3 215 288 (metal sintering preparation) and partially allowed the counterclaim for revocation, with the patent maintained in amended form for certain claims; costs split 60% claimant / 40% defendant. |
| 2025-10-09 | UPC_CFI_132/2024 | Mannheim LD | Infringement Action | Infringement merits | Not infringed | The Mannheim Local Division dismissed both the infringement action by Total Semiconductor LLC against Texas Instruments entities concerning EP 2 746 967 (DVFS processor) and the counterclaim for revocation, finding no infringement due to insufficiently substantiated assertions and the patent remaining valid. |
| 2025-10-07 | UPC_CFI_226/2025 | Milan LD | Application Rop 360 | Procedural | Settled | The Milan Local Division closed the infringement proceedings between Hypertherm Inc. and Tec.Mo. s.r.l. under R. 360 RoP after the parties reached a settlement agreement, with costs compensated between the parties and partial court fee reimbursement ordered. |
| 2025-10-07 | UPC_CFI_216/2024 | Brussels LD | Infringement Action | Infringement merits | Settled | The Brussels Local Division confirmed the settlement (dadingsovereenkomst) between Cretes NV and Hyler BV in the infringement action and counterclaim for revocation proceedings, and ordered partial reimbursement of court fees under R. 370(9)(c) and (e) RoP. |
| 2025-10-06 | UPC_CoA_288/2025 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Dismissed | The Court of Appeal dismissed Roku's appeal against the rejection of preliminary objections challenging the UPC's jurisdiction and competence in proceedings brought by Dolby International AB and Sun Patent Trust. The Court upheld that R. 19.1 RoP provides an exhaustive list of admissible grounds for preliminary objections; Art. 31 UPCA jurisdiction rules are compatible with EU law and do not encroach on CJEU jurisdiction; the Administrative Committee was empowered under Art. 87(2) UPCA to designate Milan as the replacement section for London; and a separate court fee is payable for each set of appeal proceedings. Roku's request for a single court fee covering multiple parallel appeals was also rejected. No costs were ordered as this order did not conclude the merits. |
| 2025-10-06 | UPC_CoA_288/2025 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Dismissed | The Court of Appeal (in German) dismissed Roku's appeals against the refusal of its preliminary objections in the infringement actions by Dolby International AB and Sun Patent Trust before the Munich Central Division. The Court held: (1) R. 19.1 RoP contains an exhaustive list of preliminary objection grounds, including jurisdiction; (2) Roku's Art. 47(2) Charter/Art. 6 ECHR arguments do not constitute a R. 19.1 ground; (3) the Administrative Committee had competence under Art. 87(2) UPCA to designate Milan as the replacement Central Division seat for London; (4) Court fees must be paid separately per appeal proceeding even where the same parties raise the same issues. Roku was ordered to bear Dolby's and Sun's costs. |
| 2025-10-03 | UPC_CoA_19/2025 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | Identical rectification order under R.353 VerfO correcting headnote 7 of the 3 October 2025 decision, corresponding to the Belkin counterclaim for revocation appeal (UPC_CoA_19/2025). Same substance as rectification in UPC_CoA_534/2024 and UPC_CoA_683/2024. |
| 2025-10-03 | UPC_CFI_819/2024 | Mannheim LD | Withdrawal (RoP265) | Withdrawal | Withdrawn | Decision permitting Corning Incorporated's partial withdrawal of its infringement action (EP 3 296 274) against Defendants 7 to 9 (LG Electronics entities). Defendants 7-9 did not contest the withdrawal. The proceedings against LG Electronics entities were declared closed. The counterclaim for revocation filed by Defendants 3-9 (TCL and LG entities) concerning the same case was addressed separately. |
| 2025-10-03 | UPC_CoA_683/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | Identical rectification order under R.353 VerfO correcting headnote 7 of the 3 October 2025 decision, corresponding to the Philips cross-appeal (UPC_CoA_683/2024). Same substance as rectification in UPC_CoA_534/2024 and UPC_CoA_19/2025. |
| 2025-10-03 | UPC_CoA_534/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | Infringed | Court of Appeal decision on patent infringement and counterclaim for invalidity. Belkin GmbH, Belkin International Inc. and Belkin Limited were found to infringe Philips' patent EP 2 867 997. The appeal court partially modified the first-instance judgment: it ordered Belkin (GmbH, International, Limited) to recall, permanently remove and destroy the infringing products; excluded acts by Belkin GmbH and Belkin Limited in Germany from the injunction; and set penalty payments of up to EUR 100,000 per day for breach of the cease-and-desist order. Philips' cross-appeal seeking electronic disclosure was rejected. Costs were split 50/50 between Belkin (three entities) and Philips for the infringement action; Belkin bore the invalidity counterclaim costs. The patent was maintained (revocation counterclaim dismissed). |
| 2025-10-03 | UPC_CoA_534/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal issued a rectification order under R.353 VerfO (Rules of Procedure), correcting an obvious error in headnote 7 of its decision of 3 October 2025 in the appeal concerning Philips v. Belkin (infringement action and counterclaim for revocation of EP 2 867 997). The corrected headnote 7 now reads that claimant requests for recall, removal from distribution channels, and destruction must generally specify a deadline for completion, which must already be set in the decision or final order. This is one of three identical rectification orders (also UPC_CoA_19/2025 and UPC_CoA_683/2024), corresponding to the three related appeals. |
| 2025-10-02 | UPC_CFI_636/2025 | Mannheim LD | Application Rop 333 | Procedural | Procedural only | The Mannheim Local Division issued a procedural order under R. 333 RoP reviewing the earlier rejection of Centripetal Limited's saisie application against Palo Alto Networks concerning EP 3 281 580 (network security), upholding the rejection for failure to submit sufficient facts about the infringing system. |
| 2025-10-02 | UPC_CFI_636/2025 | Mannheim LD | Request to review an order ex-parte | motionName.ex_parte | outcomeName.other | The Mannheim Local Division granted Palo Alto Networks' request to review and revoked the ex-parte saisie (evidence preservation) order of 3 June 2025 (amended 9 July 2025) issued in favour of Centripetal Limited concerning EP 3 281 580. The Court found that the saisie order should not have been issued because it was not apparent from the ex-ante perspective that the Munich branch office premises (a co-working sales space) contained staff with access to the technical network security system Centripetal sought to inspect. The Court held that a saisie order cannot require a defendant to increase employee access rights or bring equipment not ordinarily present at the premises. The Court also noted that Centripetal had an ongoing duty of candour to update the Court on new material facts. Confidentiality measures from the original order remained in force. |
| 2025-10-02 | UPC_CFI_496/2025 | Dusseldorf LD | Generic Order | Procedural | Procedural only | The Düsseldorf Local Division issued a rectification order correcting a clerical error in the decision of 29 September 2025 in the Headwater v Samsung proceedings concerning EP 3 110 072. |
| 2025-10-02 | UPC_CoA_764/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | Revoked | Second German-language version of the same Court of Appeal decision (UPC_CoA_764/2024 and 774/2024 – identical substantive outcome). Claims 1, 4, 5, 6 and 9 revoked for added matter; all infringement claims dismissed; Viosys ordered to bear all costs. |
| 2025-10-02 | UPC_CoA_774/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | Revoked | German-language version of the Court of Appeal decision in the Seoul Viosys v expert appeal (counterclaim for revocation and infringement action). Claims 1, 4, 5, 6 and 9 of the patent (LED device, EP 698) revoked for added matter in force for Austria, Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands and Sweden. All infringement claims dismissed. Viosys ordered to bear costs of both instances for both the revocation and the infringement action. |
| 2025-10-02 | UPC_CoA_774/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | Revoked | English-language version of the Court of Appeal decision (UPC_CoA_764/2024 and 774/2024): Claims 1, 4, 5, 6 and 9 of Seoul Viosys's LED patent revoked for added matter (single-mesa embodiment not clearly and unambiguously disclosed in the parent application). All infringement claims dismissed. Viosys ordered to bear expert's costs for both appeal and first instance, in both the revocation and infringement actions. |
| 2025-10-02 | UPC_CFI_162/2024 | Mannheim LD | Infringement Action | Infringement merits | Not infringed | The Mannheim Local Division dismissed Hurom Co. Ltd.'s infringement action against NUC Electronics Co. Ltd. (Korea) concerning EP 2 028 981 (juice extractor), finding no infringement of claim 1 in the separated part of the proceedings. |
| 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. |