| 2024-04-17 | APL_12116/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | Court of Appeal set aside the President of the CFI's order refusing to change the language of proceedings from German to English in the provisional measures case before the Düsseldorf Local Division. The CoA held that, considering all relevant circumstances (Curio Bioscience is a US company with no connection to Germany, the patent was granted in English, the technology field predominantly uses English), the language of proceedings shall be English. The impugned order of 26 February 2024 was set aside and the language changed to English. |
| 2024-04-15 | ORD_18121/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Generic Order | Procedural | Procedural only | The Local Division Düsseldorf ordered a joint hearing of the main infringement action and the revocation counterclaim, finding that combined treatment was efficient and appropriate given the panel had already considered both infringement and validity issues in the prior provisional measures proceedings. |
| 2024-04-15 | UPC_APP_12139/2024 | Mannheim LD | Generic application | motionName.jurisdictional | Procedural only | Order by the President of the Court of First Instance (Mannheim LD, UPC_CFI_410/2023, 15 April 2024) on Advanced Bionics' application to change the language of proceedings from German to English (the language in which EP 4 074 373 was granted). The application was considered under Art. 49(5) UPCA and R. 323 RoP following consultation with the parties and the panel. |
| 2024-04-11 | UPC_APP_12563/2024 | Paris LD | Preliminary objection | motionName.jurisdictional | Procedural only | The Paris Local Division rejected multiple defendants' (ARM group) preliminary objections to jurisdiction, ruling that where one defendant has its residence within the territorial scope of the local division, Art. 33(1)(b) UPCA applies regardless of where other defendants are based, and that belonging to the same corporate group with related commercial activities constitutes a sufficient 'commercial relationship' for multi-defendant proceedings. |
| 2024-04-11 | UPC_APP_17551/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | Order of the Court of Appeal setting out the time period for filing a Statement of appeal under Rule 220.2 RoP where leave to appeal is granted in the impugned order itself. The Court held that the 15-day period runs from service of the order containing the grant of leave (whether in the impugned order itself or in a separate order). The appeal arises from Neo Wireless GmbH & Co KG challenging rejection of a preliminary objection in revocation proceedings concerning EP 3 876 490 brought by Toyota Motor Europe. |
| 2024-04-11 | UPC_APP_9340/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Preliminary objection | motionName.jurisdictional | Procedural only | Procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division (UPC_CFI_504/2023) on a preliminary objection under R. 21.2 RoP concerning the language of proceedings. The order addressed service of the Statement of Claim on multiple defendants in the Roche Diabetes Care v. Tandem Diabetes Care and others case concerning EP 1 970 677. |
| 2024-04-11 | UPC_APP_9705/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Preliminary objection | motionName.jurisdictional | Procedural only | Düsseldorf Local Division dismissed preliminary objections concerning the language of proceedings in infringement case UPC_CFI_504/2023 (patent EP 1 970 677, glucose monitoring device). The court upheld German as the language of proceedings as chosen by claimant Roche, rejecting defendants' requests (VitalAire, Air Liquide Healthcare Nederland, Dinno Santé) to change the language to English. The defendants' preliminary objection was also ruled out of time due to a failure to deliver the objection papers to the Sub-Registry during its opening hours. |
| 2024-04-10 | UPC_CoA_404/2023 | Court of Appeal | Generic Order | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | Decision of the Court of Appeal dated 10 April 2024 concerning a request by a member of the public for access to written pleadings and evidence under R. 262.1(b) RoP in the Ocado v. Autostore proceedings. The CoA ruled on the composition of its panel (no technically qualified judges required for purely non-technical matters under Art. 9(1) UPCA), on the standard for public access requests (balancing public interest, confidentiality and personal data protection), and distinguished R. 262.1(b) requests from R. 262.3 applications. The order deals with procedural matters of public register access; no substantive patent ruling was made. |
| 2024-04-09 | UPC_APP_17640/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal issued an order clarifying the date of service for appeal documents, establishing that service rules applicable at first instance continue to apply at the appeal level in proceedings involving Panasonic and the Xiaomi group entities. |
| 2024-04-09 | UPC_APP_17640/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal (judge-rapporteur Rian Kalden) clarified the date of service of the Statement of appeal and grounds of appeal in the proceedings between Panasonic and Xiaomi. The Court held that, in appeal proceedings, service rules (Rules 270-279 RoP) apply mutatis mutandis. Where R.271.1 RoP applied at first instance (electronic address provided or representative accepted service), further service—including in appeal proceedings—must be effected through the UPC CMS. The headnote confirms that appeal service follows the same electronic system as first-instance service. |
| 2024-04-09 | UPC_APP_4074/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Request to review an order ex-parte | motionName.ex_parte | PI granted | Düsseldorf Local Division order (judge-rapporteur Thomas) on review of ex parte preliminary injunction in proceedings by Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH against Mammut Sports Group AG and GmbH concerning EP 3 466 498 (avalanche airbag backpack). The ex parte provisional measures order of 11 December 2023 was upheld following the inter partes review. Mammut was ordered to reimburse Ortovox's costs of EUR 33,375.70; Mammut's own cost claim of EUR 19,858.40 was rejected. Security of EUR 500,000 was maintained. No merits costs order (deferred to main proceedings). |
| 2024-04-08 | UPC_APP_16619/2024 | Munich LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | Order from the Munich Local Division (UPC_CFI_501/2023) rejecting Meril's request for a three-week extension to file its Statement of Defence following a language change from German to English. The Court held that a language change agreed to shortly before the deadline does not constitute exceptional circumstances justifying an extension, consistent with the UPC's principle that extensions should be granted only in exceptional cases. |
| 2024-04-08 | ORD_9710/2024 | Milan LD | Generic Order | Evidence | Procedural only | Milan Local Division order on an application by Progress Maschinen & Automation AG (claimant/applicant) to access the sealed expert report from previously-executed evidence preservation proceedings (ex parte order). As no main action on the merits was commenced and the defendants did not appeal, AWM and Schnell are entitled to have the collected evidence returned to them. The order deferred return of evidence until 5 June 2024 to allow potential Court of Appeal intervention. |
| 2024-04-05 | UPC_CFI_263/2023 | Paris CD | Revocation Action | Procedural | Procedural only | The judge-rapporteur issued an interim conference order setting out procedural directions for the revocation action concerning EP 3 414 708, including discussion of the validity of the priority claim and allowable form of amendments; no substantive ruling on patentability was made. |
| 2024-04-04 | UPC_APP_17472/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | Düsseldorf Local Division granted FUJIFILM's request for an extension of the time period for filing its Reply to the Statement of Defence (including counterclaims for revocation) until 28 May 2024. The extension was justified because a confidentiality order under Rule 262A RoP had initially restricted FUJIFILM's employees from accessing the defendants' submissions, and the full two-month period for the reply must be available after employee access is granted. |
| 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 | ORD_16076/2024 | Munich LD | Generic Order | Procedural | Procedural only | The Local Division Munich issued a procedural order in the main infringement proceedings between Avago Technologies and Tesla entities concerning European Patent EP 1 838 002, addressing case management steps following the interlocutory proceedings stage. |
| 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. |
| 2024-04-02 | UPC_APP_12793/2024 | Hamburg LD | Application RoP262A | Procedural | Procedural only | The Local Division Hamburg issued a final confidentiality order under R.262A RoP protecting Tesla's projected sales revenue figures included in its rejoinder as trade secrets, establishing a confidentiality club and restricting access to designated persons only. |
| 2024-04-02 | UPC_APP_12793/2024 | Hamburg LD | Application RoP262A | Procedural | Procedural only | Hamburg Local Division (2 April 2024) issued a final confidentiality order under R. 262A RoP classifying Tesla's projected sales figures as trade secrets and restricting access to them to named representatives of Avago Technologies only. This order replaced a prior preliminary confidentiality order. |
| 2024-03-28 | UPC_APP_12137/2024 | Court of Appeal | — | Procedural | Procedural only | Order of the Court of Appeal (Panel 2) on an application by Curio Bioscience Inc. for restriction of access to confidential information under Rule 262A RoP. Curio sought to limit access to an unredacted document (CR-3) in the context of a pending language-change appeal. The Court held that a first-instance Rule 262A order restricting access to certain documents retains its force during appeal proceedings even if not directly challenged on appeal, and continues to govern access until the conclusion of the entire proceedings. Access to the confidential document was maintained restricted to specified persons. |
| 2024-03-28 | UPC_APP_12137/2024 | Court of Appeal | — | Procedural | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal (Second Panel) ruled that the confidentiality order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division on 11 March 2024 under R. 262A RoP (restricting access to document CR-3) continues to apply in the appeal proceedings, making Curio Bioscience's separate request for a confidentiality protection order in the appeal superfluous. The existing order covers 'outside these proceedings' broadly, including the appeal. No new order needed. |
| 2024-03-27 | UPC_APP_6761/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Procedural Order | Procedural | Procedural only | The Düsseldorf Local Division issued a confidentiality order setting out principles for protection of confidential information under R.262A RoP, including the test for substantiating the confidential nature of information and the balancing of access rights against confidentiality interests. |
| 2024-03-26 | ORD_12088/2024 | Paris LD | Generic Order | Evidence | Procedural only | The Paris Local Division issued a procedural order establishing a confidentiality club under Rule 262A RoP to regulate access to trade secret information gathered during a saisie (evidence preservation) in C-Kore's infringement proceedings against Novawell. |
| 2024-03-22 | UPC_APP_14943/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Procedural Order | Procedural | Procedural only | The Düsseldorf Local Division rejected the request for simultaneous interpretation of the oral hearing from German to English, holding that interpretation is only available to the extent necessary to support a party in proceedings conducted in the language of the local division. |
| 2024-03-21 | APL_595643/2023 | Court of Appeal | Request for a discretionary review (RoP 220.3) | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal, on a request for discretionary review (R.220.3 RoP), ruled on the correct sequence of procedural remedies against decisions of the judge-rapporteur on preliminary objections, clarifying the relationship between panel review (R.333.1 RoP) and appeal. The review request was addressed on its merits under applicable procedural rules. |
| 2024-03-21 | UPC_CoA_486/2023 | Court of Appeal | Request for a discretionary review (RoP 220.3) | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | Order of the Court of Appeal (Panel 2) on a request for discretionary review under Rule 220.3 RoP. The appeal arose from a preliminary objection ruling in Huawei v. Netgear. The Court of Appeal laid down important procedural headnotes: (1) case management decisions of the judge-rapporteur cannot be directly appealed but must first be reviewed by the panel under Rule 333.1 RoP; (2) the judge-rapporteur's decision to deal with the preliminary objection in the main proceedings is such a case management decision; (3) rejection of a preliminary objection may be appealed with leave under Rule 220.2 RoP, optionally bypassing the panel review. The Court addressed the admissibility and scope of discretionary review. |
| 2024-03-20 | UPC_APP_11953/2024 | Munich LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | Very short Munich Local Division scheduling order: sets an interim hearing for 11 September 2024 and reschedules the oral hearing from 11 July 2024 to 23 October 2024 in proceedings involving Belkin entities (case UPC_CFI_62/2023). No substantive ruling. |
| 2024-03-18 | UPC_CFI_75/2023 | Munich CD | Revocation Action | Procedural | Procedural only | The Munich Central Division judge-rapporteur issued an interim conference order (R. 105.5 RoP) in the revocation action brought by Astellas Institute against Healios, Riken, and Osaka University concerning EP 3 056 563. The order recorded decisions taken at the interim conference to prepare for the oral hearing, including procedural directions on evidence and scheduling. |
| 2024-03-18 | UPC_CFI_80/2023 | Munich CD | Revocation Action | Procedural | Procedural only | Order following the interim conference (R. 105.5 RoP) in the revocation action by Astellas Institute for Regenerative Medicine against Healios K.K. and Osaka University (EP 3 056 564) at the Munich Section of the Central Division. The court confirmed the oral hearing would proceed as planned and admitted a second expert declaration (D21) conditionally, giving the defendant limited time to reply. |
| 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. |
| 2024-03-14 | UPC_CFI_440/2023 | Paris LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | Procedural order (in French) granting Laser Components SAS an extension of the deadline for filing its Statement of Defence in the infringement action brought by Seoul Viosys. The extension was granted due to technical difficulties experienced by the third-party intervener (Photon Wave Co.) in the CMS system and the anticipated filing of a separate invalidity counterclaim requiring coordination. |
| 2024-03-13 | UPC_CFI_354/2023 | Munich LD | Application for provisional measures | — | Settled | The Munich Local Division issued a decision confirming the settlement between the parties in provisional measures proceedings brought by Steindl Krantechnik against BEHA Bau- und Forstgreiftechnik concerning EP 3 287 315. Following the oral hearing of 30 January 2024, the parties reached a preliminary agreement and subsequently filed a settlement text under R. 365 RoP. The court confirmed the settlement, ordered its details to be kept confidential (R. 365.2 RoP), and noted that no separate costs decision was required as costs were regulated in the settlement. |
| 2024-03-11 | APL_4881/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal partially upheld Netgear's appeal against the Munich Local Division's order concerning deadlines following Huawei's extension of its infringement action to a second patent, setting the new time limit for Netgear's statement of defence (and any counterclaim for revocation) to 18 April 2024 instead of 11 March 2024, on the basis that due process requires defendants to receive the same full response period as for a new action. |
| 2024-03-11 | APL_4881/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | Order from the Court of Appeal (UPC_CoA_36/2024) on Netgear's appeal against the Munich Local Division's order permitting Huawei to expand its infringement action to add EP 3 678 321 alongside EP 3 611 989. The appeal was withdrawn during the interim conference after Huawei agreed to grant Netgear a three-month response period from the original first-instance panel order. The Court ruled on the principle that when a new patent is added by way of case expansion, the defendant must receive the same response period as if a new action had been filed. |
| 2024-03-11 | APL_5395/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal (second panel) set aside the Munich Local Division's order separating the action based on EP 3 678 321 and established that when a new patent is added to pending proceedings under R. 263 RoP, the defendant must receive the same response time as for a new action. |
| 2024-03-11 | APL_5395/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | Court of Appeal procedural order on an appeal against a first-instance order that had severed an amended/expanded infringement claim relating to EP 3678321 from the main action. The appeal concerned the deadline for filing a statement of defence following an amendment of the claim (R. 263 RoP). The Court of Appeal held that, as a matter of due process, when a new patent is added by way of an amended claim, the defendant must be given the same period to respond as would apply if a fresh action had been filed. |
| 2024-03-11 | UPC_APP_8500/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Application for provisional measures | Procedural | Procedural only | The Düsseldorf Local Division issued a confidentiality protection order under R.262A RoP establishing principles for granting natural persons access to protected information, holding that access cannot be denied solely because a named person works in the relevant technical field. |
| 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. |
| 2024-03-11 | UPC_CoA_335/2023 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | PI denied | Order of the Court of Appeal revoking the Munich Local Division's provisional measures order in favour of NanoString Technologies Inc. and NanoString Technologies Germany GmbH and NanoString Technologies Netherlands B.V. against President and Fellows of Harvard College and 10x Genomics, Inc. concerning EP 4 108 782 (multiplex in situ detection). The Court of Appeal found that the balance of probabilities indicated the patent was likely invalid (lack of inventive step) given prior art D6, such that a sufficient degree of certainty under Rule 211.2 RoP was lacking. Applicants bear costs. The order sets out important principles on patent claim interpretation, claim scope, and the standard for granting provisional measures. |
| 2024-03-11 | UPC_CoA_335/2023 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | PI denied | Court of Appeal rectification order correcting a slip in Headnote 2 of the 26 February 2024 order. The corrected headnote confirms that the patent claim is the decisive basis (not merely a starting point) for determining the scope of protection under Art. 69 EPC; the provisional measures application against NanoString was ultimately denied by the CoA as the patent was more likely than not invalid. |
| 2024-03-11 | UPC_CoA_335/2023 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | PI denied | Court of Appeal order (26 February 2024, German language version) denying provisional measures against NanoString. The CoA held that the patent was more likely than not invalid, laid down principles on patent claim interpretation under Art. 69 EPC, burden of proof in provisional measure proceedings, and formal requirements under R. 206 RoP. |
| 2024-03-11 | UPC_CoA_335/2023 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | PI denied | German-language rectification order (11 March 2024) correcting a slip in Headnote 2 of the CoA's 26 February 2024 provisional measures order, with corrected formulation of the patent claim interpretation principles under Art. 69 EPC. |
| 2024-03-06 | UPC_APP_6758/2024 | Paris CD | Application RoP262.1 (b) | Procedural | Procedural only | Order by Central Division Paris (6 March 2024) refusing a member of the public's request under R. 262.1(b) RoP for access to registry notification documents in revocation proceedings (UPC_CFI_263/2023). The court held that R. 262.1(b) covers only written pleadings and evidence lodged by parties, not administrative documents issued by the Registry. |
| 2024-03-05 | UPC_APP_7662/2024 | Munich LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | The Munich Local Division denied Edwards Lifesciences Corporation's request to convert a scheduled video-conference intermediate hearing to an in-person hearing, and also denied the court-ordered simultaneous interpretation from German into English, ruling that the claimant had voluntarily chosen German as the language of proceedings and could arrange interpretation at its own expense under R. 109.2 RoP. |
| 2024-03-04 | UPC_CFI_239/2023 | The Hague LD | Infringement Action | Procedural | Procedural only | The Hague Local Division granted Plant-e's application for a confidentiality order under R.262A RoP protecting financial information submitted with their reply to a R.158 application, with access limited to counsel only with the consent of the parties. |