| 2024-10-21 | UPC_APP_55674/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | Evidence | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal refused SharkNinja's application to admit new evidence (an exhibit from US proceedings, FBD 29) in the appeal from the Munich Local Division in Dyson's infringement action, finding that the evidence was not sufficiently relevant to the appellate issues concerning patent claim interpretation and that no justified reason for late submission had been established. |
| 2024-10-09 | UPC_APP_52471/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal ruled on Dyson's application to exclude certain grounds of appeal raised by SharkNinja that were not included in the statement of grounds of appeal, and on SharkNinja's application to admit new evidence. The order addressed admissibility of late-raised invalidity attack combinations (lack of inventive step based on various prior art combinations) and admission of new evidence under Rule 222.2 RoP. |
| 2024-10-09 | UPC_APP_52471/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal (Second Panel) ruled on Dyson's request to disregard certain SharkNinja grounds of appeal and on SharkNinja's submission of new evidence (FBD 27) in the appeal against the Munich Local Division's order concerning EP 2 043 492. The court found that SharkNinja had sufficiently incorporated its first-instance submissions into the appeal grounds and rejected Dyson's request to disregard grounds (a)-(d). Ground (e) regarding JP 573 was not separately addressed given the court's assessment. New evidence FBD 27 (US proceedings submission) was found to be new and SharkNinja's justification for its late submission was accepted. |
| 2024-10-09 | UPC_CoA_584/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic Order | — | Dismissed | The Court of Appeal rejected EOFlow's request for expedition of the appeal (in an appeal concerning refusal to join two provisional measures cases against different defendants). The court found that EOFlow had failed to act with sufficient urgency and by filing its appeal and expedition request at an unnecessarily late stage had insufficiently taken into account the interests of Insulet, making it impossible to expedite the appeal without prejudicing Insulet's response time. |
| 2024-09-27 | UPC_APP_53213/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal issued a separate notification to NST (Network System Technologies LLC) pursuant to R.158.4 RoP, informing it that failure to provide the ordered security for costs within three weeks may result in a decision by default in the main infringement proceedings brought by NST against Volkswagen AG. |
| 2024-09-27 | UPC_CoA_217/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | — | Procedural only | Order of the Court of Appeal dated 27 September 2024 on Audi AG's request for rectification under R. 353 RoP of a prior CoA order (dated 17 September 2024) requiring Network System Technologies LLC (NST) to provide security for costs of EUR 100,000, EUR 100,000 and EUR 300,000 in three appeal proceedings. Audi requested that the rectified order also include the notification under R. 158.4 RoP that default judgment may follow if NST fails to provide the security within three weeks. The CoA granted this request, finding the omission of the R. 158.4 notification was an obvious slip, as that notification is mandatory. |
| 2024-09-25 | APL_21143/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | PI granted | The Court of Appeal upheld a first-instance preliminary injunction (including a seizure order) obtained by Ortovox against Mammut for alleged infringement of a patent relating to avalanche rescue devices, affirming the findings on urgency, infringement likelihood, and balance of interests. The appeal by Mammut was dismissed and provisional cost reimbursement was ordered in favour of Ortovox. |
| 2024-09-25 | UPC_CoA_182/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | — | Procedural only | Rectification order of the Court of Appeal correcting an obvious clerical error in the operative part of the appeal order of 25 September 2024 (Mammut v Ortovox). In item 3 of the original order, 'Antragsgegnerin' was incorrectly used instead of 'Ortovox'; the corrected wording orders Mammut to reimburse Ortovox further provisional costs of EUR 19,858.40. |
| 2024-09-25 | UPC_CoA_182/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | — | PI granted | The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal by Mammut Sports Group and confirmed the provisional measures order issued by the Court of First Instance (Local Division) in favour of Ortovox. The Court rejected Mammut's attempts to introduce new submissions and its counterclaim for revocation in the appeal proceedings. The Court confirmed the provisional measures (seizure order and publication), the threatened penalty payment, and the security ordered. The Court additionally ordered Mammut to reimburse Ortovox's further interim costs of EUR 19,858.40 and to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings. Key legal principles established include: discretion to consider submissions rightly rejected at first instance; urgency requirements under R.211.4 RoP; irreparable harm not being a necessary condition for provisional measures; and applicability of R.263 RoP to provisional measures proceedings. |
| 2024-09-24 | APL_32347/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | Court of Appeal order on OPPO's appeal concerning requests for production of evidence (R. 190 RoP) to support a FRAND defence. The Court held that a defendant may invoke R. 190.1 RoP to request production of counter-evidence. The court must balance the defendant's interest in disclosure of documents useful to a FRAND defence against the other party's interest in protecting confidential information. The first-instance court has discretion, including as to timing in the proceedings. An application may not yet satisfy the requirements of necessity, relevance and proportionality at one stage but may do so at a later stage. |
| 2024-09-24 | APL_32347/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | Dismissed | Court of Appeal dismissed OPPO and OROPE's appeal against orders denying their requests for production of evidence (R.190 RoP) in FRAND proceedings. The Court held that the CFI acted within its margin of discretion in finding that production of Panasonic's settlement licence agreements did not meet criteria of necessity, relevance and proportionality at the current stage of proceedings. |
| 2024-09-24 | UPC_CoA_298/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | — | Procedural only | Order of the Court of Appeal (Panel 2) on appeals by Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications and OROPE Germany GmbH against the Mannheim Local Division's refusal to order document production (Rule 190 RoP) in FRAND-related patent proceedings by Panasonic. The Court of Appeal held: (1) a defendant may rely on Rule 190.1 to seek production of counter-evidence; (2) the court must balance the defendant's interest in evidence useful for a FRAND defence against the other party's and third parties' confidentiality interests; (3) the first-instance court has discretion under Rule 190, which may include sequencing considerations; (4) the assessment may depend on the procedural stage and may be premature at earlier stages. |
| 2024-09-18 | APL_38206/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal allowed Google's appeal and ordered the change of language of the proceedings from German to English, finding that Google's internal working language was English and that it was unduly disadvantaged by having to conduct proceedings in German, while Ona's managing director was proficient in both languages. |
| 2024-09-18 | APL_38948/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | Court of Appeal order on Apple's appeal against refusal to change the language of proceedings from German to English in infringement proceedings brought by Ona Patents against Apple before the Düsseldorf Local Division. The Court of Appeal clarified that internal working language of parties and their ability to coordinate on technical issues are relevant factors when deciding a language change request on grounds of fairness (Art. 49(5) UPCA). Parallel national court proceedings between the parties are of less relevance to this analysis. |
| 2024-09-18 | UPC_CoA_264/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | — | Dismissed | The Court of Appeal dismissed Audi AG's appeal in six consolidated cases challenging the Munich Local Division's refusal to grant preliminary objections under Rule 361 RoP (action manifestly bound to fail) against NST's infringement actions. The court held that R.361 RoP is reserved for clear-cut cases and cannot require the claimant to pre-empt every possible line of defence in the statement of claim. The court also rejected Audi's arguments that opt-outs were invalidly withdrawn, finding the UPC has jurisdiction. |
| 2024-09-17 | APL_25922/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal set aside the Munich Local Division's orders refusing security for costs and ordered Network System Technologies LLC to provide security for costs to Volkswagen AG, finding that NST's financial position as a special-purpose patent enforcement entity created a legitimate concern that a cost order might not be recoverable. |
| 2024-09-17 | APL_25919/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | The UPC Court of Appeal set aside the Munich Local Division's orders denying security for costs and ordered Network System Technologies LLC to provide security to Audi AG in amounts of EUR 100,000 (two cases) and EUR 300,000 (one case), finding that the lower court applied too high a standard of proof and that NST's failure to disclose its financial situation warranted the order. |
| 2024-08-26 | UPC_APP_45255/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal ordered Ballinno B.V. to provide security for legal costs in favour of the Kinexon companies and UEFA in the appeal proceedings, finding that Ballinno's limited liquid assets gave rise to a legitimate concern that a cost order would not be recoverable; the security was set at a reduced amount. |
| 2024-08-21 | UPC_CoA_454/2024 | Court of Appeal | Request for a discretionary review (RoP 220.3) | — | Dismissed | Court of Appeal held that Microsoft's appeal against an order denying its R.361 RoP request (manifestly inadmissible application) was inadmissible because the impugned order was a case management order issued by a single judge-rapporteur rather than a panel. An appeal from a case management order is only admissible if the order was issued by a panel. The request for discretionary review was dismissed. |
| 2024-08-21 | UPC_CoA_354/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | — | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal Panel 2 issued a procedural order summoning parties to an oral hearing by video conference (23 August 2024) in the appeal by Apple entities against the Düsseldorf Local Division's refusal to change the language of proceedings to the patent grant language in the Ona Patents infringement action concerning EP 2 263 098. The order also addressed Apple's application for further written pleadings (R. 9 RoP) and Ona Patents' request to disregard that reply (R. 36 RoP). |
| 2024-08-19 | UPC_CoA_388/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic Order | — | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal partially granted Sibio's request for suspensive effect of their appeal, specifically to the extent that the first-instance provisional measures order erroneously covered Ireland (which had not ratified the UPCA and therefore was not a Contracting Member State). The erroneous extension to Ireland was identified as a manifest error. |
| 2024-08-06 | APL_21602/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | Order from the Court of Appeal (UPC_CoA_183/2024) addressing service of a Statement of Claim on defendants based in China and Taiwan. The Court held that a group company in a Contracting Member State cannot automatically be used to serve Chinese or Taiwanese parent companies; Hague Convention procedures must normally be attempted first for China, and diplomatic/consular channels for Taiwan, before alternative methods are permitted. |
| 2024-08-06 | APL_24585/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Dismissed | Court of Appeal upheld Hamburg Local Division's refusal to allow service of a statement of claim on Chinese Xiaomi entities (Xiaomi Communications Co. Ltd. and Xiaomi Inc.) via their German/Dutch group companies in Nera Innovations Ltd. v. Xiaomi entities (EP 2 642 632). The court held: (1) service on a Chinese-domiciled defendant cannot be made via a group company in a contracting member state without more, because the corporate separation principle applies; (2) service must first be attempted via the Hague Service Convention (R. 274.1(a)(ii) RoP); (3) alternative service (R. 274.1(b), R. 275 RoP) is available only after Hague Convention attempts. |
| 2024-08-06 | APL_10370/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal (Panel 2) ruled on service of the statement of claim on Xiaomi defendants in China and Hong Kong in Panasonic Holdings Corporation v Xiaomi (UPC_CoA_86/2024, EP 2 207 270). The Court held that service on a Chinese or HK group company cannot automatically be effected through a related group company in a Contracting Member State — such a company cannot be treated as the registered office, head office, or principal place of business, nor as a permanent or temporary business establishment under R. 271.5(a) RoP. Service attempts in China via the Hague Service Convention must normally be made before alternative service methods or alternative locations under R. 275 RoP are permitted. |
| 2024-08-06 | UPC_CoA_205/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | — | Procedural only | Court of Appeal ruled on service of statement of claim on Chinese defendants. Held that a defendant company in China cannot, as a starting point, be served via a group company in a Contracting Member State. Attempts to serve via the Hague Convention must normally be made before alternative service methods are permitted. The appeal concerning service procedure was decided on its merits; no ruling on infringement. |
| 2024-08-06 | UPC_CoA_86/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | — | Procedural only | Court of Appeal ruled on service of statement of claim on defendants in China and Hong Kong. Held that Chinese and Hong Kong defendants cannot be served via group companies in Contracting Member States. Service via the Hague Convention must normally be attempted first before alternative methods under R.275 RoP are permitted. No ruling on infringement merits. |
| 2024-07-30 | UPC_CoA_402/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | — | Procedural only | Procedural order from the Court of Appeal dated 30 July 2024 rejecting Alexion Pharmaceuticals' request for expedition of its appeal against the Hamburg Local Division's dismissal of its preliminary injunction application against Samsung Bioepis NL B.V. The CoA found the circumstances were not sufficiently urgent to outweigh Samsung's interest in the standard 15-day response period, noting that the appeal concerned a purely legal issue was insufficient justification, and that Alexion had not used the full time period available to it. |
| 2024-07-29 | UPC_CoA_69/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Dismissed | Court of Appeal rejected NEC's appeal against the Munich Local Division's refusal to permit service on Chinese and Hong Kong TCL companies by email or by public notice. The CoA held that: (1) service by email to a person not authorised to accept service is invalid; (2) public service at a UPC Local Division is not yet permissible at that stage; (3) attempts at service via the Hague Convention must normally be exhausted before alternative methods are permitted. NEC's appeal was rejected. |
| 2024-07-26 | UPC_APP_33764/2024 | Court of Appeal | Application RoP262A | Procedural | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal issued a procedural order in an appeal concerning security for costs and a confidentiality application under Rule 262A RoP, granting ARM an opportunity to amend its Statement of response to address the unredacted version of a confidential exhibit, and setting a schedule for any additional evidence and response. |
| 2024-07-26 | UPC_APP_33764/2024 | Court of Appeal | Application RoP262A | Procedural | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal addressed ICPillar's application for confidentiality under Rule 262A RoP regarding Exhibit 4 to the Statement of Appeal in proceedings concerning security for legal costs, in the underlying infringement action against ARM Limited. |
| 2024-07-11 | UPC_APP_39101/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | motionName.appeal_decision | Dismissed | Court of Appeal (11 July 2024) dismissed Apple's application to accelerate the appeal proceedings and shorten the time limit for Ona Patents to file its response. The CoA held that Apple's interest in acceleration did not outweigh Ona's interest in proper proceedings and a fair time limit. |
| 2024-07-07 | UPC_CoA_301/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | — | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal Panel 2 issued a procedural order in the appeal by ICPillar LLC against an ARM-group request for security for costs (R. 158 RoP) granted by the Paris Local Division. The order addressed a technical problem with CMS notification and ICPillar's R. 262A confidentiality application submitted alongside its statement of appeal, dealing with service and procedural steps only. |
| 2024-07-05 | UPC_APP_38102/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | Procedural | Withdrawn | Order from the Court of Appeal (UPC_CoA_234/2024) allowing 10x Genomics' request to withdraw its appeal against a partial dismissal of its application for provisional measures against Curio Bioscience, after Curio confirmed it had not filed a cross-appeal. The Court of Appeal declared the appeal proceedings closed, with costs to be decided in a final order in the main action. |
| 2024-06-20 | UPC_CoA_234/2024 | Court of Appeal | Application RoP262A | — | Procedural only | Court of Appeal ruled that a confidentiality order (R.262A RoP) issued by the Court of First Instance continues to apply in appeal proceedings without the need for a new order. The Registry was instructed to grant access to unredacted statements only to persons named in the original CFI confidentiality order. |
| 2024-06-20 | UPC_CoA_234/2024 | Court of Appeal | Application RoP262A | — | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal ruled that a non-appealed confidentiality order (Rule 262A RoP) made by the Court of First Instance continues to apply in appeal proceedings. No new Rule 262A order is required where the same already-protected information appears in another document lodged in the appeal. |
| 2024-06-19 | UPC_APP_35055/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | Court of Appeal (Panel 2) procedural order rejecting ICPillar LLC's application for suspensive effect of a Paris Local Division order requiring ICPillar to provide security for costs of EUR 600,000 (R. 158 RoP), and also rejecting ICPillar's subordinate request for expedition of the appeal. The Court held that suspensive effect under Art. 74(1) UPCA is in principle available for R. 220.2 RoP orders (notwithstanding R. 223.5 RoP), but that only exceptional circumstances justify granting it. No exceptional circumstances existed here – the risk of a default judgment if ICPillar fails to comply is an inherent feature of non-compliance, and is not sufficient to grant suspensive effect. |
| 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. |
| 2024-06-04 | 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. |
| 2024-05-22 | 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. |
| 2024-05-01 | UPC_APP_23543/2024 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 333 | Procedural | Procedural only | Court of Appeal (Second Panel) dismissed Daedalus Prime LLC's request for panel review of an order refusing extension of time for the Statement of Grounds of Appeal. The panel found no grounds to deviate from the judge-rapporteur's order, holding that the desire to present a thorough analysis or obtain a legal opinion does not justify extension. |