| 2024-08-05 | ORD_35905/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Generic Order | Procedural | Procedural only | Order by Düsseldorf Local Division (UPC_CFI_373/2023, 5 August 2024) dismissing Aarke AB's application for security for costs against SodaStream (Israeli company). The court held that the mere alleged future non-compliance with a cost order does not justify security; claimant's solvency was not in doubt and the absence of an international enforcement treaty alone was insufficient. |
| 2024-08-05 | UPC_APP_41447/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Application Rop 333 | Procedural | Procedural only | Düsseldorf Local Division procedural order (judge-rapporteur Thomas) in infringement proceedings by Seoul Viosys / Seoul Semiconductor against expert GmbH entities concerning EP 3 926 698. The order addresses a late application to amend the patent (R. 30.2 RoP), deferring the admissibility decision on the amendment and setting a response deadline for the defendant. No substantive ruling. |
| 2024-08-02 | UPC_APP_41706/2024 | Paris LD | Order Communicate Information | Procedural | Procedural only | The Paris Local Division judge-rapporteur issued an order for communication of information under Rule 191 RoP, granting HP's request in part for disclosure of identities of third parties involved in production and distribution of allegedly infringing products, subject to confidentiality protections. |
| 2024-08-02 | ORD_40822/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Generic Order | Procedural | Procedural only | The Düsseldorf Local Division issued a procedural order addressing the scope of applications to amend the patent under R. 30 RoP and R. 263 RoP. The court clarified that amendments to auxiliary requests in an application to amend the patent are subject to R. 30.2 RoP (requiring court permission), and that territorial limitation of an amendment application should only be made if there are objective reasons for it under Art. 34 UPCA. |
| 2024-07-31 | UPC_APP_43965/2024 | Mannheim LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | The Mannheim Local Division issued a procedural order addressing alternative service of the statement of claim on Xiaomi H.K. Limited, finding that further attempts at service are not required once all service methods under Rules 270-274 RoP have been exhausted and the Chinese Central Authority definitively refused service. |
| 2024-07-31 | UPC_APP_43962/2024 | Mannheim LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | The Local Division Mannheim ordered alternative service under R.275.2 RoP after formal service via the Hague Service Convention was definitively refused by Chinese authorities on political grounds, and ruled that the court will not censor or redact documents at the request of a foreign central authority. |
| 2024-07-31 | ORD_37208/2024 | Vienna LD | Generic Order | Procedural | Procedural only | Order by Vienna Local Division (UPC_CFI_33/2024, 30 July 2024) admitting Chainzone Technology's application to intervene as third party (Streithilfe) in patent infringement proceedings between SWARCO Futurit and STRABAG, subject to depositing security for costs of EUR 134,000 by 20 August 2024. Chainzone was found to have the requisite legal interest as the allegedly infringing product it purchased is the subject of the infringement claim. |
| 2024-07-31 | UPC_APP_36267/2024 | Paris LD | Order Communicate Information | Procedural | Procedural only | Paris Local Division order (judge-rapporteur Lignières) on Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.'s application (R. 191 RoP) to compel Dexcom entities to disclose the full distribution chain for the Dexcom G6 and G7 systems across Contracting Member States in infringement proceedings concerning EP 3 988 471. The order addresses timing and scope of the communication of information request, likely deferring or partially granting the request pending the interim conference, with Dexcom's alternative proposals for limitation and confidentiality considered. |
| 2024-07-31 | UPC_APP_43960/2024 | Mannheim LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | Order of the Mannheim Local Division on an application by Panasonic Holdings Corporation for alternative service on Xiaomi H.K. Limited under Rule 275.2 RoP. The court had exhausted all formal service methods under Rules 270-274 RoP. The central authority of the requested state (presumably China/Hong Kong) had refused service because the claim described Xiaomi's headquarters in a way that did not align with its political preferences regarding the name of the defendant's location. The court held: (1) no repeated service attempt is required once all Rule 270-274 methods have been exhausted and the central authority has definitively refused on political grounds; (2) the court will not redact or censor party submissions at the request of a foreign authority; (3) the alternative service order under Rule 275.2 must be published on the UPC homepage when conventional service would also be refused for the same reasons. |
| 2024-07-30 | UPC_APP_43889/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal rejected Alexion Pharmaceuticals' request to expedite the appeal against the Hamburg Local Division's refusal to grant provisional measures against Amgen, holding that the circumstances were not sufficiently urgent to justify shortening the time period for the respondents to lodge their statement of response. |
| 2024-07-30 | UPC_APP_37662/2024 | Paris CD | Application RoP262A | Procedural | Procedural only | The Central Division (Paris) issued a procedural order on Rule 262A RoP and Rule 262.2 RoP applications regarding confidentiality of preliminary cost estimates and attorney fee arrangements submitted after the interim conference in CEAD B.V.'s infringement action against BEGO Medical GmbH. |
| 2024-07-30 | ORD_42107/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Generic Order | Evidence | Procedural only | The Düsseldorf Local Division issued a procedural order confirming that an intervener (Access Advance LLC) is treated as a party under Rule 315.4 RoP and is therefore entitled to apply for protection of confidential information under Rule 262A RoP in the Dolby v. HP infringement proceedings. |
| 2024-07-29 | UPC_APP_36394/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal held that an application for cost assessment following an appeal order must be filed with the Court of First Instance (not the Court of Appeal), even when the costs relate solely to the appeal proceedings. |
| 2024-07-29 | ORD_43914/2024 | Munich LD | Generic Order | Procedural | Procedural only | The Munich Local Division issued a procedural order concerning a stay of infringement proceedings in the Amgen v Sanofi/Regeneron case relating to EP3666797, in light of parallel EPO opposition proceedings and a separate revocation action filed by the defendants at the UPC Central Division. |
| 2024-07-29 | UPC_APP_39789/2024 | The Hague LD | Application RoP262.1 (b) | Procedural | Procedural only | Procedural order granting Powell Gilbert LLP's application for public access to the register (R. 262.1 RoP) in the Abbott Diabetes Care v Sibio Technology preliminary injunction proceedings. The court applied the criteria from Ocado v AutoStore and granted access despite objections from both Abbott and Sibio that proceedings were still ongoing on appeal. |
| 2024-07-29 | UPC_APP_39761/2024 | The Hague LD | Application RoP262.1 (b) | Procedural | Procedural only | The Hague Local Division granted law firm Powell Gilbert LLP's application for public access to the written pleadings and evidence in the provisional measures proceedings between Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. and Sibio Technology Limited / Umedwings Netherlands B.V. concerning EP 2 713 879 (a continuous glucose monitoring patent), following the conclusion of those proceedings by a final order. The court applied the Ocado v AutoStore criteria and held that Powell Gilbert had a legitimate interest in understanding the decision, and that the protection-of-integrity interest no longer applied once proceedings had ended at first instance (even if an appeal was pending, per CoA precedent). Annex E1 (confidential) was subject to further consideration. |
| 2024-07-29 | UPC_APP_35673/2024 | Paris CD | Application RoP262.1 (b) | Procedural | Procedural only | Central Division Paris granted Mathys & Squire LLP's application for public access (R. 262.1(b) RoP) to written pleadings and evidence in proceedings between BITZER Electronics A/S and Carrier Corporation (EP 3 414 708). The applicant, an IP firm handling opt-out filings, argued general public interest in understanding how the UPC handles jurisdiction over opted-out patents. The respondents did not comment. Access was granted. |
| 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. |
| 2024-07-26 | UPC_APP_43560/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal's standing judge ruled on Sibio/Umedwings' application to disregard Abbott's four auxiliary requests filed in the Statement of Appeal in preliminary injunction proceedings relating to EP 3 831 283 (glucose monitoring). |
| 2024-07-26 | UPC_APP_42088/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Amend Document | Procedural | Procedural only | Düsseldorf Local Division (26 July 2024) granted Valeo Electrification leave to amend its claim in provisional measures proceedings to add a previously alternative feature, narrowing the scope of the requested preliminary injunction to infringement of claim 6 of EP 3 320 602 B1. |
| 2024-07-26 | UPC_APP_36130/2024 | Hamburg LD | Generic application | motionName.jurisdictional | Procedural only | The President of the Court of First Instance granted Tandem Diabetes Care's application to change the language of proceedings from German to English (the language in which the patent was granted) in an infringement action brought by Roche Diabetes Care GmbH. The court found that where the balance of interests between the parties was equal (both being international companies), the position of the defendant was the decisive factor. |
| 2024-07-26 | UPC_APP_42818/2024 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 223 | Procedural | Procedural only | Order of the President of the Court of Appeal (in Dutch) in OrthoApnea / Vivisol v [anonymised] (EP 2 331 036). Defendants (appellants) applied for suspensive effect of an order refusing to extend the deadline for their rejoinder. The president found such an application may be admissible. The order addresses the procedural question of suspensive effect in the context of a refusal to extend a rejoinder deadline. |
| 2024-07-26 | UPC_APP_42818/2024 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 223 | Procedural | Procedural only | The President of the Court of Appeal (Klaus Grabinski, Standing Judge) rejected the defendants' (OrthoApnea S.L. and Vivisol B BV) request for suspensive effect of the appeal against the Brussels Local Division's decision not to extend the deadline for their Statement of Rejoinder beyond 1 August 2024 (Request I). The court found no manifestly erroneous decision by the CFI. Requests II, III and IV (which go to the substance of the appeal and the request for extension) were referred to the competent panel. |
| 2024-07-25 | UPC_APP_42900/2024 | Munich CD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | The Munich Central Division issued a procedural order in NanoString's revocation action against Harvard's EP 2 794 928, addressing the impact of the German Federal Patent Court's revocation decision (May 2024) on the parallel UPC proceedings and granting Harvard's request for expert evidence on auxiliary requests. |
| 2024-07-25 | UPC_APP_42970/2024 | Mannheim LD | Generic application | Evidence | Procedural only | The Mannheim Local Division issued a procedural order permitting defendants to submit video recordings as physical exhibits on a USB stick because the file size exceeded the CMS upload limit. The order set out the procedure for submitting physical exhibits to the case management system. |
| 2024-07-25 | UPC_APP_42733/2024 | Hamburg LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | Hamburg Local Division procedural order on Xiaomi defendants' request for a two-week extension of the deadline for filing their statement of defence and any counterclaim for revocation. Xiaomi argued it needed technical information from chipmaker MediaTek about the allegedly infringing chip functions, subject to restrictive confidentiality obligations, which could not yet be obtained in time. Daedalus Prime (claimant) opposed the extension, arguing no exceptional reasons had been shown. |
| 2024-07-24 | ORD_41423/2024 | Paris LD | Generic Order | Procedural | Procedural only | The Paris Local Division issued a procedural order addressing the schedule and management of the Seoul Viosys v. Laser Components infringement action, including Photon Wave's intervention and a parallel revocation action at the Central Division. |
| 2024-07-23 | ORD_40568/2024 | Milan LD | Generic Order | Evidence | Procedural only | The Milan Local Division granted a confidentiality order for a license agreement document in Oerlikon's infringement proceedings against Himson, limiting access to a confidentiality club that includes one technical consultant for the defendant and counsel for both parties. |
| 2024-07-23 | UPC_APP_28655/2024 | Milan LD | Application RoP262A | Procedural | Procedural only | Procedural order from the Milan Local Division (UPC_CFI_240/2023) on Oerlikon's application under R. 262A RoP for confidentiality protection of financial information disclosed in its rejoinder in proceedings concerning EP 2 145 848. The Court ordered creation of a confidential club including at least one natural person from Himson and technical consultants, ruling that excluding natural persons from the respondent would breach the right to adversarial proceedings. |
| 2024-07-22 | UPC_APP_40530/2024 | Mannheim LD | Application Rop 333 | Procedural | Procedural only | Order by Mannheim Local Division panel (UPC_CFI_471/2023, 22 July 2024) on AYLO defendants' R. 333 RoP review application against the judge-rapporteur's confidentiality order. The panel upheld the access restrictions to technical information in the defendants' statement of defence, rejecting the claimants' request to exclude three of their designated persons from access. |
| 2024-07-22 | UPC_APP_25069/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Application RoP262A | Procedural | Procedural only | Procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division (UPC_CFI_457/2023) on a confidentiality protection application under R. 262A RoP by HP defendants in Dolby's infringement proceedings concerning EP 3 490 258. The Court ruled that an intervener (Access Advance LLC) is to be treated as a party under R. 315.4 RoP and is therefore entitled to at least one natural person in the confidential club, in addition to legal representatives. |
| 2024-07-22 | UPC_APP_25069/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Application RoP262A | Procedural | Procedural only | Procedural order of the Düsseldorf Local Division (issued 22 July 2024) concerning the protection of confidential information under R.262A RoP in the infringement proceedings Dolby v. HP entities. The order addressed the access rights of intervener Access Advance LLC, holding that an intervener is treated as a party under R.315.4 RoP and has the right to ensure that at least one natural person in addition to legal representatives is included in the group entitled to access confidential information. Defendants' remaining requests were dismissed. |
| 2024-07-19 | ORD_42503/2024 | Brussels LD | Generic Order | Procedural | Procedural only | The Brussels Local Division (full panel) dismissed the respondents' application for review under R. 333 RoP of an earlier judge-rapporteur order that had denied their objection against the claimant's equivalence arguments introduced in the reply. The panel upheld the judge-rapporteur's finding that introducing an infringement argument based on equivalence in the reply did not constitute a fundamental new ground requiring prior leave under R. 263.1 RoP. |
| 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. |
| 2024-07-11 | UPC_APP_40022/2024 | Munich LD | Generic application | Costs | Withdrawn | Munich Local Division accepted withdrawal of KraussMaffei Extrusion GmbH's infringement action against TROESTER GmbH & Co. KG (EP 3 221 117). The parties reached an out-of-court settlement notified on 9 July 2024. The hearing date of 3 September 2024 was vacated, withdrawal permitted, and proceedings declared closed. Claimant was entitled to a 20% refund of court fees under R. 370.9(b)(iii) RoP as the written procedure had not yet been completed at the time of withdrawal (the oral hearing had taken place but further submissions had been ordered). |
| 2024-07-10 | UPC_APP_32822/2024 | Mannheim LD | Application RoP262A | Procedural | Procedural only | Procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division (UPC_CFI_219/2023) on Panasonic's application for confidentiality protection under R. 262A RoP in infringement proceedings concerning EP 2 568 724 against Xiaomi entities. The Court addressed the composition of the confidential club and held that access to confidential information before the UPC must be restricted to duly authorised representatives under Art. 48 UPCA, refusing to follow the Munich Local Division's approach of permitting cross-proceeding coordination. |
| 2024-07-10 | UPC_APP_39247/2024 | Munich LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | Munich Local Division procedural order granting OPPO's request for an extension of the deadline for filing its rejoinder (Duplik) in infringement proceedings concerning a telecommunications patent owned by Panasonic. |
| 2024-07-10 | ORD_35569/2024 | Mannheim LD | Generic Order | Procedural | Procedural only | The Mannheim Local Division issued a procedural order in MED-EL v Advanced Bionics (UPC_CFI_410/2023, EP 4 074 373) concerning the referral of the counterclaim for revocation and patent amendment request to the Central Division. Following a parallel central revocation action (ACT_576555/2023, UPC_CFI_338/2023) which was already near completion, the Court addressed the question of whether to refer the counterclaim and the parties' submissions on that issue. |
| 2024-07-09 | UPC_APP_32695/2024 | Mannheim LD | Application RoP262A | Procedural | Procedural only | The Local Division Mannheim issued a final confidentiality order under R.262A RoP protecting Panasonic's licence agreement details from disclosure to OPPO/OROPE in infringement proceedings, addressing disputes over the scope of the confidentiality club, cross-use of information in parallel proceedings, and the number of permitted in-house access persons. |
| 2024-07-09 | UPC_APP_32695/2024 | Mannheim LD | Application RoP262A | Procedural | Procedural only | Order of the Mannheim Local Division on an application for confidentiality protection (Rule 262A RoP) filed by Panasonic Holdings Corporation regarding license agreement information in the infringement proceedings against OROPE Germany GmbH and Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. The order sets the scope of the confidentiality regime, including access permissions for external counsel in parallel UK proceedings. |
| 2024-07-08 | UPC_APP_37702/2024 | Brussels LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | Procedural order of the Brussels Local Division in an infringement action concerning EP 2 331 036. The order addresses whether the claimant was permitted to supplement the factual basis and add equivalence infringement arguments in the Reply to the Statement of Defence, and whether the request/claims could be adapted. The order ruled on the admissibility of equivalence arguments raised at the reply stage. |
| 2024-07-06 | UPC_APP_15611/2024 | Munich LD | Application RoP262A | Procedural | Procedural only | Confidentiality order (R. 262A RoP) by Munich Local Division in Panasonic v OPPO/OROPE proceedings concerning EP 3 024 163. The court granted a confidentiality regime for disputed documents, granting each side (claimant: 3 persons, defendants: 4 persons) access to confidential materials. The scope was aligned with the handling in parallel proceedings against Xiaomi. |
| 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. |
| 2024-07-04 | UPC_APP_33754/2024 | Munich LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | The Munich Local Division issued a procedural order resolving a dispute over the time limits for filing a rejoinder in the infringement action, ruling that the deadline for the rejoinder runs only from when the fully unredacted reply is served on the defendants. |
| 2024-07-04 | ORD_40039/2024 | Mannheim LD | Generic Order | Procedural | Procedural only | The Mannheim Local Division issued a procedural guidance order in the infringement action by Panasonic against Xiaomi entities concerning EP 2 568 724. The order set out the court's preliminary views on the infringement analysis of key claim features and requested submissions from the parties on specific technical and legal questions in preparation for the oral hearing. |
| 2024-07-04 | UPC_APP_14324/2024 | Munich LD | Application RoP262A | Procedural | Procedural only | Munich Local Division confidentiality order (R. 262A RoP) in Panasonic Holdings Corporation v. Xiaomi entities (EP 3 024 163). The application by Panasonic to classify certain commercial or technical information in the proceedings as confidential and restrict access was addressed. Given the multiple Xiaomi defendants from China, Germany, France, Italy and the Netherlands, the order structured access to confidential materials. |
| 2024-07-04 | UPC_APP_21945/2024 | Munich LD | Application RoP262A | Procedural | Procedural only | The Munich Local Division issued a procedural order concerning an application for protection of confidential information (R. 262A RoP) filed by Panasonic Holdings Corporation in infringement proceedings against the Xiaomi group (UPC_CFI_220/2023) concerning EP 3 024 163. The order addressed the terms of the confidentiality club established between the parties and corrected duplications in the preliminary confidentiality order. |
| 2024-07-03 | UPC_APP_39459/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Generic application | Procedural | Settled | Order by Düsseldorf Local Division (UPC_CFI_133/2024, 3 July 2024) confirming settlement between Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. and Sibio/Umedwings under R. 365.1(2) RoP in provisional measures proceedings over EP 2 393 417. A 20% reimbursement of court fees was ordered, the settlement having been reached at the oral hearing stage. |
| 2024-07-03 | UPC_APP_26934/2024 | Mannheim LD | Application RoP262A | Procedural | Procedural only | Initial confidentiality order by Mannheim Local Division judge-rapporteur (UPC_CFI_471/2023, 3 July 2024) under R. 262A RoP granting AYLO defendants' application to restrict access to technical information about their systems in the statement of defence. Access was limited to a maximum of three named persons on the claimants' side; specifically excluded are claimants' representatives in the parallel UK High Court proceedings. |