| 2025-03-18 | UPC_APP_12933/2025 | Munich LD | Application Rop 265 | Procedural | Withdrawn | The Local Division Munich allowed the withdrawal of both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation filed by consent of both parties, terminated the proceedings, and ordered a partial refund of court fees to Scandit. No cost order was made between the parties. |
| 2025-03-18 | UPC_CFI_127/2025 | Milan LD | Application for preserving evidence pursuant to RoP192 | Evidence | Procedural only | The Milan Local Division granted Prinoth S.p.A. an order for preservation of evidence, inspection and seizure against Xelom S.r.l. concerning EP 1 995 159 and EP 2 507 436 (snow grooming vehicles), in advance of main proceedings. |
| 2025-03-18 | UPC_CFI_554/2024 | The Hague LD | Application for preserving evidence pursuant to RoP192 | Evidence | Procedural only | A standing judge at The Hague Local Division granted Data Detection Technologies an ex-parte order to preserve evidence at the Seeds meets Technology 2024 fair in the Netherlands, authorising inspection, photography and seizure of documents relating to Doytec's seed counting machine allegedly infringing EP 2 569 713. |
| 2025-03-17 | UPC_APP_66581/2024 | Munich LD | Application RoP262A | Procedural | Costs only | The Local Division Munich issued a combined order on a cost decision application, a confidentiality request (R.262A RoP) regarding the cost decision documents, and a request to amend pleadings (R.263 RoP), determining the scope of confidentiality protection for fee schedules and invoices in Edwards Lifesciences vs. Meril cost proceedings. |
| 2025-03-14 | UPC_APP_11294/2025 | Dusseldorf LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | Düsseldorf Local Division procedural order in infringement proceedings by Roche entities (F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG and Roche Diabetes Care GmbH) against Tandem Diabetes Care, VitalAire, Dinno Santé, Air Liquide Healthcare, and Rubin Medical ApS concerning EP 1 970 677. The order (judge-rapporteur Dr. Schumacher) addresses simultaneous interpretation at the oral hearing (R. 109.1 RoP). No substantive ruling. |
| 2025-03-13 | UPC_APP_7866/2025 | Paris CD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | The Paris Central Division (Panel 2) rejected Microsoft Corporation's application to have Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy's infringement action declared manifestly inadmissible on the grounds that the claimant's representative allegedly had excessive financial authority over the claimant entity, finding that a lack of valid representation does not render the action inadmissible but merely requires the party to remedy the deficit. |
| 2025-03-11 | UPC_APP_6818/2025 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | Costs | Costs only | The Court of Appeal ruled on multiple applications for refund of court fees related to three separate appeal proceedings between 10x Genomics/Harvard and Vizgen, determining the applicable court fee refund rules following the conclusion of those appeal proceedings. |
| 2025-03-11 | UPC_APP_6815/2025 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | Costs | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal issued an order granting 10x Genomics's applications for partial refund of court fees following withdrawal of three appeals (APL_59634/2024, APL_61301/2024, APL_26/2025) against Hamburg Local Division orders concerning EP 4 108 782 (10x v. Vizgen). Court fees were refunded at 60% (for the appeal withdrawn before close of written procedure) and 20% (for appeals withdrawn before close of oral procedure) pursuant to R. 370.9(b) RoP. |
| 2025-03-11 | ORD_11863/2025 | Mannheim LD | Generic Order | motionName.jurisdictional | Infringed | Decision by Mannheim Local Division (UPC_CFI_162/2024, 11 March 2025) finding NUC Electronics Co., Ltd. liable for direct infringement of claim 1 of EP 2 028 981 B1 (slow juicer / juice extractor) in France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Denmark and Romania. An injunction was granted, damages were declared owed, and information obligations were imposed. The decision extensively addressed the intertemporal applicability of UPCA substantive law vs. national law to pre-UPCA and ongoing acts, and the primacy of Art. 26 Brussels Ia Reg. over R. 19.7 RoP on submission of jurisdiction. |
| 2025-03-11 | UPC_APP_6812/2025 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | Costs | Procedural only | Court of Appeal order granting reimbursement of court fees to 10x Genomics and Harvard following withdrawal of three appeals against orders in the Hamburg Local Division proceedings against Vizgen (EP 4 108 782). 60% reimbursement granted for the appeal withdrawn before closure of written proceedings; 20% for each of the two appeals withdrawn before closure of oral proceedings. |
| 2025-03-10 | UPC_APP_15/2025 | Munich LD | Application RoP262A | Procedural | Procedural only | The Munich Local Division granted Promosome LLC's application under Rule 262A RoP for confidentiality protection of certain exhibits (VB 4a and VB 4b) in its infringement action against BioNTech and Pfizer entities. |
| 2025-03-10 | UPC_APP_15/2025 | Munich LD | Application RoP262A | Procedural | Procedural only | Munich Local Division issued a confidentiality order under Rule 262A RoP in the infringement action by BioNTech/Pfizer entities against Promosome LLC (EP 2 401 365). The order protected specific exhibits (VB 4a and VB 4b) containing confidential licensing information, granting access only to named representatives and specified individuals from each party. The preliminary protection from a prior order was lifted to the extent superseded. |
| 2025-03-05 | UPC_APP_6378/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 265 | Procedural | Withdrawn | The Court of Appeal granted 10x Genomics and Harvard College's requests to withdraw three pending appeals against discovery/document production orders issued by the Hamburg Local Division in the infringement proceedings against Vizgen Inc., with no costs order by agreement of both parties. |
| 2025-03-05 | UPC_APP_6377/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 265 | Procedural | Withdrawn | Order of the Court of Appeal permitting the withdrawal of three appeals (APL_59634/2024, APL_61301/2024, APL_26/2025) filed by 10x Genomics, Inc. and President and Fellows of Harvard College against orders of the Hamburg Local Division concerning security for costs in infringement proceedings against Vizgen, Inc. Both parties consented and waived costs decisions. The appeal proceedings were declared closed. |
| 2025-03-05 | UPC_APP_6376/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 265 | Procedural | Withdrawn | Order of the Court of Appeal (Panel 1a) granting three applications by 10x Genomics and President and Fellows of Harvard College for withdrawal of three pending appeals (UPC_CoA_654/2024, UPC_CoA_700/2024, and UPC_CoA_1/2025) against Hamburg Local Division orders in the infringement proceedings against Vizgen Inc. The three appeals had been filed in connection with various case management orders made by the Hamburg Local Division in the main UPC_CFI_22/2023 proceedings. All three appeals were permitted to be withdrawn. |
| 2025-03-04 | UPC_APP_4496/2025 | Dusseldorf LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | The Düsseldorf Local Division issued a procedural order in the GlaxoSmithKline v Pfizer RSV vaccine case (EP4183412), deciding to bifurcate by referring the counterclaim for revocation to the Milan Central Division while proceeding with the infringement action, and granting a one-month extension for Pfizer's rejoinder. |
| 2025-03-04 | UPC_APP_1153/2025 | Dusseldorf LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | Procedural order from Düsseldorf Local Division (judge-rapporteur Thomas) refusing parties' requests to allow further written pleadings under R. 36 RoP in infringement proceedings concerning EP 2 755 901. The order holds that applications to exchange further submissions were not successful, as claimant (Hartmann Packaging A/S) raised equivalence infringement arguments without proper procedural basis. No substantive ruling on infringement or validity. |
| 2025-03-03 | UPC_CFI_142/2025 | Mannheim LD | Application for preserving evidence pursuant to RoP192 | Evidence | Procedural only | Mannheim Local Division rejected an ex parte application for preservation of evidence (saisie) against an anonymous defendant for alleged infringement of an anonymous patent. The Court found the evidentiary threshold for granting the saisie was not met. This is a redacted decision with all party and patent details anonymised. |
| 2025-03-03 | UPC_CFI_492/2024 | Copenhagen LD | Application for preserving evidence pursuant to RoP192 | Evidence | Procedural only | Order by the Copenhagen Local Division in preservation of evidence proceedings. The court ruled that the supplementary IT expert report from the evidence preservation procedure may be disclosed to the parties' representatives under confidentiality obligations. The court declined to impose penalty payments at that stage. Costs deferred to main proceedings. |
| 2025-02-28 | UPC_APP_2829/2025 | Munich LD | Amend Document | Procedural | Procedural only | The Munich Local Division ruled on Esko-Graphics' R. 263 RoP application to amend its infringement claim to include the Netherlands (where the patent had since been restored) after the Statement of Claim had been filed, in proceedings against XSYS entities. |
| 2025-02-28 | UPC_APP_7719/2025 | Munich CD | Application Rop305 | Procedural | Procedural only | The Central Division (Munich) granted Virdia Inc.'s application to substitute International N&H Denmark ApS as the defendant in UPM-Kymmene's revocation action, following assignment of EP 2 611 800 to the new entity. |
| 2025-02-27 | UPC_APP_7494/2025 | Nordic-Baltic RD | Application Rop 265 | Procedural | Settled | The Nordic-Baltic Regional Division declared provisional measures proceedings between Fapa Vital AG and Valentis Baltic UAB concerning EP1978949 closed following the applicant's withdrawal after a settlement, ordered 60% reimbursement of court fees under R.370.9(b)(i) RoP, and declined to issue a cost decision as agreed by the parties. |
| 2025-02-27 | UPC_APP_5729/2025 | Milan CD | Application Rop 265 | Procedural | Withdrawn | Central Division Milan closed revocation proceedings UPC 57037/2024 filed by SharkNinja Italy S.R.L. against Dyson Technology Limited's EP 2 043 492. The parties had agreed to settle litigation and signed a term sheet. SharkNinja requested withdrawal of the revocation action with Dyson's consent. No cost decision was needed. SharkNinja was entitled to a 60% refund of court fees (EUR 12,000) under R. 370.9(b)(i) as the withdrawal occurred before closure of the written procedure. Value of the case set at EUR 500,000. |
| 2025-02-27 | UPC_CFI_57/2024 | Milan CD | Generic application | — | Settled | Order from the Milan Central Division dated 27 February 2025 permitting SharkNinja Italy S.R.L. to withdraw its revocation action against Dyson Technology Limited (EP 2 043 492) following a settlement agreement. Claimant had filed a stay request on 3 January 2025 on grounds of a settlement term sheet, subsequently requested withdrawal on 3–4 February 2025, and Dyson consented. The proceedings were declared closed. A 60% reimbursement of court fees (EUR 12,000) was granted as the action was withdrawn before closure of the written procedure (R. 370.9(b)(i) RoP). No cost decision was required. |
| 2025-02-26 | UPC_APP_2369/2025 | Munich LD | Application Rop 362 | Procedural | Procedural only | The Munich Local Division issued a corrective order amending the operative part of a prior decision to reflect the substitution of the party in the revocation counterclaim proceedings, and deferred ruling on an application to bar proceedings under Rule 362 RoP until the main hearing. |
| 2025-02-26 | UPC_APP_6598/2025 | Paris LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | The Paris Local Division rejected Gisela Mayer GmbH's application for security for legal costs under R. 158 RoP against French claimant NJ Diffusion SARL, finding that NJ Diffusion's positive financial position meant there was no demonstrated risk that it could not pay a potential cost award capped at €56,000. |
| 2025-02-26 | UPC_APP_8530/2025 | Dusseldorf LD | Generic application | Procedural | Dismissed | Request by defendant Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd. for permission to file an additional pleading (R. 36 RoP) in infringement proceedings Grundfos Holding A/S v. Hefei Xinhu (Düsseldorf Local Division, EP 2 778 423) was rejected. The request was filed more than six weeks after the Chinese Patent Office invalidated the counterpart Chinese patent, and the defendant failed to explain the delay. Filing shortly before the scheduled oral hearing (27 March 2025) would have unduly disadvantaged the claimant and the court. |
| 2025-02-26 | ORD_9486/2025 | Munich LD | Generic Order | Procedural | Procedural only | Procedural order of the Munich Local Division in infringement and revocation counterclaim proceedings concerning a metal sintering preparation patent. The order addresses: (1) correction of a prior order of 2 December 2024 by adding an operative clause ordering the substitution of the counter-claimant in the revocation proceedings from Heraeus Precious Metals to Heraeus Electronics; (2) request for review by the panel under R. 333 RoP; and (3) a claimant application regarding the counterclaim under R. 362 RoP concerning the German designation of the patent. |
| 2025-02-25 | UPC_APP_608/2025 | Munich LD | Application Rop 333 | Procedural | Procedural only | The Munich Local Division panel reviewed the judge-rapporteur's decision to grant only 40% court fee reimbursement (rather than 60% sought by Panasonic) following settlement-based withdrawal of the infringement actions and counterclaims. |
| 2025-02-25 | UPC_APP_619/2025 | Munich LD | Application Rop 333 | Procedural | Costs only | Munich Local Division panel order reviewing (R. 333 RoP) the judge-rapporteur's earlier decision to refund only 40% of court fees following withdrawal of infringement actions and counterclaims (after out-of-court settlement) in patent proceedings by Panasonic Holdings Corporation against Xiaomi entities (UPC_CFI_220/2023) and Guangdong OPPO Mobile (UPC_CFI_221/2023) concerning EP 3 024 163. Panasonic argued a 60% refund was due. The panel confirmed the 40% refund rate, finding the withdrawals occurred after closure of the written procedure (R. 370.9(b)(ii) RoP). |
| 2025-02-25 | UPC_APP_516/2025 | Munich LD | Application Rop 333 | Procedural | Settled | Munich Local Division order reviewing (under R. 333 RoP) an earlier order that granted only 40% court fee reimbursement following the parties' settlement and mutual withdrawal of infringement action and revocation counterclaims. The parties had agreed on settlement in late 2024 after intensive proceedings in a complex SEP case (OPPO vs Panasonic re EP 2 197 132). The claimant challenged the 40% reimbursement, arguing that 60% should apply, contending the case qualified as exceptional under R. 370.9(e) RoP given the extraordinary amount of work the court had performed (far above average). The order addresses what constitutes an 'exceptional case' permitting reduction of the standard fee refund schedule. |
| 2025-02-24 | UPC_APP_7141/2025 | Munich LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | The Munich Local Division issued a procedural order following an interim conference in the Hand Held Products v. Scandit infringement action, addressing issues including partial withdrawal of claims for direct infringement, Rule 36 requests, and workflow obligations under the case management system. |
| 2025-02-24 | UPC_APP_15954/2024 | Munich LD | Generic application | Costs | Costs only | The Munich Local Division (judge-rapporteur) issued a final costs decision for the provisional measures proceedings (both first instance and appeal) in the 10x Genomics v. NanoString matter. NanoString (respondents in the cost proceedings) were ordered to pay EUR 337,431.50 in costs to the applicants (Bruker/Luxendo/Bruker Nederland), as the costs order following the appeal was final and not merely provisional. The cost application filed after expiry of the one-month deadline was time-barred. |
| 2025-02-21 | ORD_8874/2025 | Court of Appeal | Generic Order | Procedural | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal (Standing Judge Ingeborg Simonsson) ruled on admissibility issues in Hanshow's appeal against the Munich Local Division's cost decision in VusionGroup's provisional measures proceedings (EP 3 883 277). The Court held that: (1) cost applications constitute summary proceedings; (2) R. 221 RoP does not always require a separate Statement of Appeal after leave to appeal; an application for leave to appeal that sets out the reasons and arguments may serve as both; (3) the Application for Leave treated as the Statement of Appeal was admissible. The Court addressed the substance of the appeal on this basis. |
| 2025-02-20 | UPC_APP_2588/2025 | Dusseldorf LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | The Düsseldorf Local Division issued a procedural order allowing 10x Genomics to exchange the enforcement security deposit for the preliminary injunction against Curio Bioscience with a bank guarantee, following the approach set in the Ortovox v. Mammut precedent. |
| 2025-02-20 | UPC_APP_6987/2025 | Brussels LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | Brussels Local Division (20 February 2025) ruled on HYLER BV's contested addition of new non-infringement arguments and a new document in its rejoinder. The panel rejected the primary request, upheld the alternative request in part, and excluded certain paragraphs of HYLER's rejoinder (paragraphs 506–510) from consideration, finding they introduced new arguments not justified by Cretes' reply submissions. The request for an extra week to respond was also rendered moot. |
| 2025-02-20 | UPC_APP_3348/2025 | Milan LD | Application RoP262.1 (b) | Procedural | Procedural only | The Milan Local Division denied Bhagat Textile Engineers' application for access to the counterclaim for revocation file under Rule 262.1(b) RoP, finding the information sought could be obtained through other means and that access would compromise the integrity of ongoing settlement negotiations. |
| 2025-02-20 | UPC_APP_3348/2025 | Milan LD | Application RoP262.1 (b) | Procedural | Dismissed | Application by Bhagat Textile Engineers for public access under R.262.1(b) RoP to the counterclaim for revocation case file (Himson v. Oerlikon) in proceedings before the Milan Local Division was rejected. The court held that the information sought was obtainable from other public sources, that Bhagat had already been found to infringe the patent in parallel proceedings and had procedurally chosen not to challenge the patent, and that granting access would compromise the integrity of pending settlement negotiations between the parties. |
| 2025-02-19 | ORD_8329/2025 | Paris LD | Generic Order | Procedural | Procedural only | The Paris Local Division denied POSCO's application under R. 262.1(b) RoP to access the register of the infringement case (ArcelorMittal v. XPENG), because the action was at an early stage with no validity challenge yet filed and no sufficient justification for access based on parallel EPO opposition proceedings. |
| 2025-02-19 | UPC_APP_5727/2025 | Munich LD | Application Rop 265 | Procedural | Settled | The Munich Local Division granted Dyson Technology Limited's withdrawal of its infringement action and SharkNinja's withdrawal of its counterclaim for revocation following an out-of-court settlement, with 60% of court fees to be reimbursed to each withdrawing party and no cost applications to be filed. |
| 2025-02-19 | UPC_APP_2704/2025 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | The UPC Court of Appeal ordered the release of security deposits (totalling EUR 500,000) previously provided by Network System Technologies LLC in three cases following withdrawal of its infringement actions against Audi AG, Texas Instruments, and Volkswagen, applying R.352.2 RoP by analogy to security for costs. |
| 2025-02-19 | UPC_APP_7738/2025 | Dusseldorf LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | Procedural order of the Düsseldorf Local Division in infringement proceedings by Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd. against Solarlab Aiko Europe GmbH, Aiko Energy Netherlands B.V., Aiko Energy Germany GmbH and other defendants concerning EP 3 065 184 B1. The order relates to a procedural application (nature not fully specified in excerpt but consistent with confidentiality or time period issues). |
| 2025-02-19 | UPC_CFI_16/2025 | The Hague LD | Application for preserving evidence pursuant to RoP192 | Evidence | Procedural only | The Hague Local Division issued a procedural order concerning access to an expert's written report from evidence preservation proceedings, regulating a confidentiality regime for the report initially limiting access to defendants' representatives and later extending it to the applicant. |
| 2025-02-19 | UPC_CFI_156/2024 | Munich LD | Generic Order | — | Procedural only | The Munich Local Division granted Chainzone Technology's application for access to the court file under Rule 262.1(b) RoP in evidence-preservation proceedings. Access was granted following SWARCO's lack of objection, noting that Chainzone had been admitted as an intervener in parallel proceedings before the Vienna Local Division. |
| 2025-02-19 | UPC_CFI_156/2024 | Munich LD | Application for preserving evidence pursuant to RoP192 | — | Procedural only | Order of the Munich Local Division (full panel) in evidence-preservation proceedings brought by SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme against Yunex GmbH concerning EP 2 643 717 (traffic signal systems). Following resolution of the evidence-preservation application, the court addressed procedural questions: (1) Rule 360 RoP applies by analogy to evidence-preservation proceedings; (2) Rule 198.1 RoP applies by analogy in cases of resolution of an evidence-preservation application; (3) costs are reserved for the main proceedings. The order also addressed standards for specific and substantiated denial of facts (Regel 171.2 and 284 RoP). |
| 2025-02-17 | UPC_APP_6774/2025 | Dusseldorf LD | Application Rop 265 | Procedural | Withdrawn | The Düsseldorf Local Division allowed the claimant's withdrawal of the infringement action and the defendants' withdrawal of the counterclaim for revocation, both with mutual consent, declared the proceedings closed, and directed 60% reimbursement of court fees to each side. |
| 2025-02-17 | UPC_APP_66551/2024 | Munich LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | The Munich Local Division rejected Meril's application for rectification of an infringement decision (ORD_598479/2023) under R. 353 RoP, finding that the alleged inaccuracies in the statement of facts did not constitute clerical errors or obvious slips warranting correction. |
| 2025-02-17 | UPC_APP_56087/2024 | Paris CD | Generic application | Costs | Dismissed | Request for security for legal costs (R. 158 RoP) by claimant AYLO PREMIUM LTD against defendant DISH Technologies L.L.C. rejected. The court found insufficient evidence that the defendant would be unable to pay litigation costs, noting that EchoStar had submitted a declaration to reimburse up to EUR 400,000. The parallel request regarding the patent amendment application was referred to a separate order. |
| 2025-02-17 | UPC_CFI_527/2024 | Nordic-Baltic RD | Application for preserving evidence pursuant to RoP192 | — | Withdrawn | Nordic-Baltic Regional Division declared the evidence preservation proceedings closed following Imbox Protection's withdrawal of its application after being convinced that the defendants do not infringe EP 2 276 862. As the unsuccessful party, Imbox was ordered to reimburse each defendant (Brunngård Group AB and Footbridge Group AB) SEK 225,000 in legal costs. The ceiling for recoverable costs applies as a joint ceiling regardless of number of defendants. |
| 2025-02-15 | UPC_APP_5366/2025 | Milan CD | Generic application | Costs | Costs only | Procedural order from the Milan section of the Central Division (UPC_CFI_380/2024) on costs in preliminary injunction proceedings. EOFLOW applied for reimbursement of its costs incurred defending against Insulet's rejected preliminary injunction application. The Court ruled that costs of a preliminary phase must be settled at the time of the final merits decision, not parcelled out by procedural stage, and therefore deferred the costs question. |