| 2026-03-11 | UPC_CoA_934/2025 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | Settled | Court of Appeal accepted the withdrawal of the application for provisional measures following an out-of-court settlement between the parties. The Düsseldorf Local Division had previously granted provisional measures to Roche against Menarini entities. Following settlement, the proceedings were declared terminated. Each party bears its own costs. |
| 2026-03-03 | UPC_CFI_43/2025 | The Hague LD | Infringement Action | Infringement merits | Revoked | The Hague Local Division revoked Advanced Brain Monitoring's EP 2 437 696 B2 (position therapy device for sleep disorders) as lacking inventive step over JP748 prior art. The counterclaim for revocation by Philips succeeded and the infringement action was dismissed. |
| 2026-02-11 | UPC_CFI_351/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Infringement Action | Infringement merits | Infringed | The Düsseldorf Local Division found Canon's developer supply container patent EP 3 686 683 infringed by Katun and General Plastic entities, granting an injunction and ordering defendants to publish the operative part of the decision on their websites; the counterclaim for revocation was dismissed. |
| 2025-12-29 | UPC_CFI_351/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Infringement Action | Procedural | Procedural only | The Düsseldorf Local Division addressed Canon's request for simultaneous interpretation from English into Japanese during the oral hearing, for corporate representatives joining remotely from Japan. |
| 2025-12-10 | UPC_CFI_351/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Generic Order | Procedural | Procedural only | The Düsseldorf Local Division issued a post-interim-conference order in the Canon v. Katun proceedings, setting the feature breakdown of claim 1 of EP 3 686 683 to be used at the oral hearing. |
| 2025-11-20 | UPC_CFI_351/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Generic Order | Procedural | Procedural only | The Düsseldorf Local Division granted Canon's application for a further round of written pleadings under R. 36 RoP against Katun, to address the EPO Opposition Division's preliminary opinion and additional test purchases of allegedly infringing toner cartridge products. |
| 2025-06-12 | UPC_CFI_351/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Generic Order | Procedural | Procedural only | Procedural order in Canon v. Katun/General Plastic infringement action. The Düsseldorf Local Division decided under R. 37.2 RoP to proceed jointly with both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation (Art. 33(3)(a) UPCA) for reasons of efficiency, allowing validity and infringement to be decided on a unified factual record. |
| 2025-04-18 | UPC_APP_6597/2025 | Paris LD | Application RoP262.1 (b) | Procedural | Procedural only | Paris Local Division partially granted LIFE365's application under R.262.1(b) RoP for access to the case file in the HP v. LAMA France proceedings. Access was granted to certain pleadings concerning the validity of the patents (statement of claim, statement of defence, claimant's reply) but only in redacted form respecting confidentiality orders. Access to infringement-related pleadings was denied as LIFE365 failed to show the cartridges were of the same origin. Access to exhibits was denied as these were publicly available from the EPO. |
| 2025-04-18 | UPC_CFI_358/2023 | Paris LD | Application RoP262.1 (b) | Procedural | Procedural only | Paris Local Division ruled on a third-party access request to the case file under R.262.1(b) RoP by LIFE365 (Italian companies involved in compatible printer cartridges). The Court granted partial access to certain public procedural documents (including certain memorials and prior art documents cited), but withheld documents covered by confidentiality orders and those declared inadmissible. |
| 2025-01-10 | ACT_578697/2023 | Paris LD | Generic application | Costs | Costs only | Paris Local Division issued a costs decision in Hewlett-Packard Development Company LP v LAMA FRANCE (UPC_CFI_358/2023, infringement action concerning EP 2 089 230 and EP 1 737 669). Applying the prior decision of 13 November 2024 (50/50 cost split), the court rejected both parties' requests to raise the 50% ceiling on recoverable representation costs. Each party owes the other EUR 112,000 in representation costs and EUR 7,500 in court fees, resulting in a wash. No ceiling uplift was justified despite the complexity of the double-patent case. |
| 2024-12-19 | UPC_APP_66323/2024 | Paris LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | The Paris Local Division ruled on LAMA France's applications filed in enforcement proceedings following the main decision of 13 November 2024 against LAMA. LAMA requested a stay of enforcement pending appeal, a restricted confidentiality circle, and security. The court addressed the jurisdiction of the first instance court vs Court of Appeal to rule on a stay of enforcement during the appeal period. |
| 2024-11-13 | UPC_CFI_358/2023 | Paris LD | Infringement Action | Infringement merits | Infringed | Final decision on the merits (in French) in the infringement action by Hewlett-Packard Development Company LP against LAMA France concerning inkjet printer cartridge technology. The Paris Local Division found that LAMA France infringed the patent in suit (a fluid ejection device patent). The court ordered: (I) patent maintained as valid (invalidity counterclaim rejected); (II) injunction against infringing cartridges; (III) corrective measures including recall from distribution channels and destruction of infringing stock; (IV) disclosure of sales information for damages calculation; (V) costs split equally between parties (50/50); provisional damages on costs rejected. Infringement established without requiring prior notice of the patent to the defendant. |
| 2023-12-18 | UPC_CFI_358/2023 | Paris LD | Infringement Action | Procedural | Procedural only | The Paris Local Division issued a procedural order in an infringement action brought by Hewlett-Packard against Lama France, addressing Lama's requests regarding access to exhibits that were unreadable via the CMS and seeking an extension of the deadline to file its statement of defence. The order dealt exclusively with case management and access to documents. |