| 2025-06-02 | APL_8790/2025 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Dismissed | The Court of Appeal dismissed XSYS's appeal against rejection of a preliminary objection challenging the UPC's temporal competence in infringement proceedings brought by Esko-Graphics Imaging GmbH (UPC_CoA_156/2025). The Court established that the UPC has competence over acts of infringement occurring before the entry into force of the UPCA, as Art. 32 UPCA contains no temporal limitation. This does not violate the non-retroactivity principle under Art. 28 VCLT. During the transitional period, UPC and national courts have concurrent competence unless the patent is opted out. The Court also dismissed XSYS's request for a CJEU preliminary reference and for a stay of proceedings. In the case of an opt-out withdrawal, the UPC is competent also for acts occurring between the opt-out and withdrawal dates. |
| 2025-06-02 | APL_8790/2025 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Dismissed | Court of Appeal dismissed XSYS's appeal against the CFI's rejection of a preliminary objection based on alleged lack of UPC jurisdiction for acts predating the UPCA's entry into force. The CoA held that Art.32(1) UPCA has no temporal limitation and that the UPC has jurisdiction from the date of filing of the action, including for alleged infringements occurring before the UPCA came into force. A valid opt-out withdrawal brings the patent back under full UPC jurisdiction for all infringement periods. This is the German-language version of the decision. |
| 2025-05-26 | UPC_CoA_1/2025 | Court of Appeal | — | Procedural | Injunction denied | The Court of Appeal denied the application by Chainzone Technology (Foshan) Co., Ltd. (intervener/defendant) for suspensive effect of its appeal against the infringement order of the Vienna Local Division (15 January 2025) in proceedings between SWARCO FUTURIT and STRABAG. Chainzone failed to demonstrate manifest errors in the first-instance decision concerning EP 2 643 717 (a colour-mixing convergent optical system). The order confirming the injunction against STRABAG therefore remained enforceable. This is the German language version; an English translation exists (see finalorderuspensiveeffect EN.pdf). Note: the referenced case number in the parties section is UPC_CoA_70/2025 (Strabag appeal) and UPC_CoA_1/2025 (Chainzone appeal). |
| 2025-05-26 | UPC_CoA_1/2025 | Court of Appeal | — | Procedural | Injunction denied | The Court of Appeal denied the application by Chainzone Technology (Foshan) Co., Ltd. for suspensive effect of its appeal against the infringement order of the Vienna Local Division concerning EP 2 643 717 (colour-mixing convergent optical system / LED optics). Chainzone failed to demonstrate that the first-instance decision was manifestly erroneous. The enforcement of the injunction against STRABAG therefore continued. Key headnotes: application for suspensive effect must itself enable the respondent to prepare and the court to decide; suspensive effect requires manifest error in the impugned order; a company director is not an 'intermediary' under Art. 63 UPCA merely by reason of their directorship; security for enforcement under R.352.1 must be ordered at the time of the decision. This is the English translation of finalordersuspensiveeffect.DE_.pdf. |
| 2025-03-28 | UPC_CoA_170/2025 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | — | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal (standing judge) issued a procedural order partially granting Phoenix Contact GmbH & Co. KG's request for an extension of the 15-day deadline to file its response to ILME GmbH's appeal against the Munich Local Division's rejection of ILME's preliminary objection (R. 19 RoP). The extension was granted for 10 days (instead of the requested three weeks), balancing efficiency with Phoenix's need to respond to complex arguments. |
| 2025-03-03 | UPC_CoA_805/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Withdrawn | The Court of Appeal (Panel 1b: Grabinski, Gougé, Germano) permitted Curio Bioscience's withdrawal of its appeal (APL_65956/2024) against the Düsseldorf Local Division's order requiring Curio to provide security for costs of EUR 200,000 in the infringement action by 10x Genomics concerning EP 2 697 391. 10x Genomics did not object to the withdrawal. Proceedings declared closed; no cost decision needed. |
| 2025-02-24 | UPC_CoA_540/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | PI denied | Court of Appeal rejected Biolitec's appeal against the Düsseldorf Local Division's refusal to grant a preliminary injunction. The CoA upheld the first-instance order, finding that Biolitec had not demonstrated the necessity of provisional measures: proceedings on the merits could be awaited; the status quo on the market had existed for years before the patent was granted; and Biolitec failed to demonstrate sufficient evidence of urgency regarding stocking or tender-related harm. Biolitec was ordered to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings. |
| 2025-02-24 | UPC_CoA_540/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | PI denied | German-language signed version of the Court of Appeal order rejecting Biolitec's appeal in the provisional measures proceedings against Light Guide Optics and SIA LIGHTGUIDE International. Identical in substance to the English version: appeal rejected, Biolitec ordered to bear costs. The provisional injunction was denied because proceedings on the merits could be awaited and necessity was not demonstrated. |
| 2025-02-12 | APL_58177/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | Court of Appeal Panel 1a order on the scope of confidentiality protection (R. 262A RoP) in proceedings by Daedalus Prime LLC (appellant/claimant) against Xiaomi entities, with MediaTek as intervener, concerning EP 2 792 100. The order addresses whether US attorneys (non-EU, non-UPCA Art. 48 representatives) may be granted full access to confidential information. The Court held that R. 262A.6 RoP does not require persons accessing confidential information to be employees or Art. 48 UPCA representatives; access depends on necessity and trustworthiness assessed case by case. |
| 2025-02-11 | UPC_CoA_563/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Dismissed | Court of Appeal rejected Suinno's appeal against a first-instance procedural order in the infringement action Suinno brought against Microsoft before the Paris Central Division. The appeal was rejected. |
| 2025-01-20 | UPC_CoA_835/2024 | Court of Appeal | Application RoP262A | — | Procedural only | Procedural order of the Court of Appeal dated 20 January 2025 on Amazon's R. 262A RoP application for confidentiality protection regarding Nokia's licensing and licence-agreement information disclosed in infringement proceedings (Nokia v. Amazon, UPC_CFI_399/2023). The CoA granted Amazon's request for confidentiality, ordering that certain grey-highlighted passages and 'strictly confidential' annexes regarding Nokia's licensee identities and licence agreement terms be restricted in access to designated persons only, beyond the CFI's existing classification. |
| 2024-12-20 | APL_40470/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | PI denied | The Court of Appeal dismissed Alexion's appeal against the Hamburg Local Division's refusal to grant provisional measures against Samsung Bioepis regarding patent EP 3167888. The Court addressed the interpretation of patent claims containing linguistic errors and the relevance of prosecution history. |
| 2024-12-19 | UPC_CoA_523/2024 | Court of Appeal | Procedural Order | Procedural | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal (Second Panel) ruled on admission of new evidence in the appeal by Sumi Agro against the Munich Local Division's provisional measures order in favour of Syngenta concerning EP 2 152 073. Exhibit SA17 (new pages from a publication already partly submitted at first instance) was disregarded as Sumi Agro failed to justify why these additional pages could not have been submitted earlier. Syngenta's Exhibits FF28-29 were also disregarded. However, Syngenta's Exhibits FF24-27 (concerning a possibly changed version of the contested Kagura product) were admitted, as they related to new evidence about a product modification. |
| 2024-12-10 | UPC_CoA_470/2023 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | — | outcomeName.other | Order of the Court of Appeal dated 10 December 2024 setting aside the CFI order imposing penalty payments (Zwangsgelder) on NanoString for alleged violations of a preliminary injunction that had been previously revoked by the CoA. The CoA held that the revocation of a preliminary injunction under Art. 75(1) UPCA and R. 242.1 RoP is retroactive — the revoked order is treated as having never had legal effect. Consequently, any subsequent order imposing penalties based on the revoked injunction also lacks legal basis, even if it concerns alleged violations before the revocation. The CFI penalty order was set aside, 10x Genomics' applications were dismissed, 10x was ordered to bear all costs, and NanoString's payment made in compliance with the penalty order was to be reimbursed. |
| 2024-12-10 | UPC_CoA_470/2023 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | — | outcomeName.other | The Court of Appeal revoked the Munich Local Division's order imposing penalty payments on NanoString for breach of a provisional injunction regarding EP 4 108 782, and rejected 10x's requests. The Court held that the Court of Appeal's earlier revocation (26 February 2024) of the provisional injunction order of 19 September 2023 had retroactive effect, meaning that the order was void ab initio and therefore could not serve as a valid legal basis for any penalty order, even for alleged breaches prior to the revocation. 10x was ordered to bear the costs of both instances and to reimburse the amount paid by NanoString. |
| 2024-11-21 | APL_44633/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | Decision by the Court of Appeal (UPC_CoA_456/2024, 21 November 2024) dismissing OrthoApnea's appeal against a first-instance order permitting the claimant to raise a doctrine-of-equivalents argument. The CoA held: not every new argument is an amendment of the case requiring leave under R. 263 RoP; raising the doctrine of equivalents does not change the nature or scope of the infringement dispute when the same patent and product remain at issue; admissibility of new arguments depends on circumstances and procedural fairness. |
| 2024-11-21 | APL_44633/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Dismissed | Court of Appeal declared the appeal against the primary first-instance order inadmissible and rejected the appeal against the review order. The CoA clarified the rules on amendment of a case versus new arguments: not every new argument constitutes an amendment of case requiring leave under R.263 RoP; the nature or scope of the dispute must change. The anonymised respondent's claims relating to admissibility of new arguments were assessed. The case involves a patent infringement action before a Dutch-language division. |
| 2024-10-04 | UPC_CoA_2/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Costs only | Order from the Court of Appeal dated 4 October 2024 on costs following Meril's submission of an undertaking (Unterlassungs- und Verpflichtungserklärung) to Edwards Lifesciences, which resulted in dismissal of the preliminary injunction action. The CoA held that, where a defendant undertakes to comply with the claimant's requests after proceedings have commenced, the claimant is generally to be regarded as the prevailing party under Art. 69(1) UPCA, without any need to examine the merits at the time of the undertaking. The undertaking itself implies that the claimant's requests were satisfied. Accordingly, Meril was ordered to bear the costs of proceedings. |
| 2024-10-04 | UPC_CoA_2/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Costs only | The Court of Appeal dismissed Meril's appeal against the Munich Local Division's costs order following a cease-and-desist undertaking by Meril. The Court held that Edwards was the successful party because Meril's cease-and-desist undertaking fulfilled the substance of Edwards' requests after proceedings commenced. Where a defendant gives a cease-and-desist undertaking during proceedings, the claimant is generally the successful party for costs purposes, and there is no need to examine admissibility and merits at the time of the undertaking. |
| 2024-09-17 | APL_26889/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | Court of Appeal ordered the stay of UPC revocation proceedings (UPC_CFI_484/2023) in Mala Technologies Ltd. v Nokia Technology GmbH concerning EP 2 044 709 (German part only), pending the outcome of parallel German Federal Patent Court/BGH revocation proceedings initiated by Nokia Solutions. Applying Art. 30 Brussels I recast Regulation, the court found that the causes of action in both proceedings are almost identical, the parties closely related, and the German proceedings at a more advanced stage. Mala's request for stay was upheld, and Nokia Technology's auxiliary request to limit the stay to the German part was rejected as moot. |
| 2024-09-05 | APL_12739/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Dismissed | Court of Appeal (5 September 2024) dismissed Advanced Bionics' appeal against the CFI's refusal to transfer their infringement case to the Central Division. The CoA confirmed that joinder under R. 340 RoP cannot result in transfer to a different chamber outside Art. 33 UPCA, and that Art. 33(5) UPCA does not allow transfer of an infringement action to the Central Division without the consent of both parties. |
| 2024-09-05 | APL_24598/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | Dismissed | Court of Appeal (5 September 2024) dismissed Advanced Bionics' appeal against the CFI's refusal to change the language of proceedings from German to English (the patent language). The CoA confirmed that the domicile of parties in a German-speaking country was a decisive factor against granting a language change, and clarified that Art. 49(5) UPCA does not require the language change request to be included in the statement of defence. |
| 2024-09-05 | UPC_CoA_207/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | — | Dismissed | The Court of Appeal dismissed Advanced Bionics' appeal against the President of the Court of First Instance's refusal to change the language of proceedings from English (language of the patent) to German in the infringement action before the Mannheim Local Division. The Court held that the parties' domicile in countries where the language chosen by the claimant is an official language is an important factor weighing against a language change. The application was not required to be included in the Statement of Defence (Art. 49(5) UPCA; R. 323.3 RoP). |
| 2024-09-05 | UPC_CoA_106/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | — | Dismissed | The Court of Appeal dismissed Advanced Bionics' appeal against the Mannheim Local Division's order refusing to refer the infringement action to the Central Division via a connection joinder (R. 340 RoP). The Court held that a connection joinder under R. 340 RoP cannot result in referral to another division beyond the possibilities provided in Art. 33 UPCA, and Art. 33 UPCA does not permit referral of an infringement action from a local division to the central division without the agreement of the parties. |
| 2024-09-03 | UPC_CoA_188/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | — | Procedural only | Order of the Court of Appeal dated 3 September 2024 on AYLO entities' appeal against the Mannheim Local Division's rejection of their preliminary objections in infringement proceedings brought by DISH Technologies and Sling TV regarding EP 2 479 956. The CoA dismissed AYLO's appeal and upheld the CFI's rulings on: (1) international jurisdiction of the UPC (Art. 7(2) Brussels I in conjunction with Art. 71b(1)) – jurisdiction exists if the patent has effect in at least one Contracting Member State and alleged internet-accessible services can cause damage there; (2) competence of the Mannheim Local Division; (3) rejection of the parallel national proceedings argument under Art. 30(2) Brussels I; and (4) confirmation that the list of preliminary objections under R. 19.1 RoP is exhaustive – abuse of process and manifest inadmissibility are not recognised as unwritten preliminary objections. |
| 2024-09-03 | UPC_CoA_188/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | — | Dismissed | The Court of Appeal dismissed AYLO's appeal against the Munich Local Division's rejection of AYLO's preliminary objection challenging UPC jurisdiction and competence. The Court of Appeal upheld UPC jurisdiction under Art. 7(2) Brussels I recast and Art. 71b(1) in conjunction with Art. 33(1)(a) UPCA, holding that jurisdiction exists where a European patent has effect in at least one Contracting Member State and alleged damage may occur there (including via internet access). The list of preliminary objections in R. 19.1 RoP is exhaustive; defences based on abusive procedural conduct and manifest lack of foundation are not admissible as preliminary objections. |
| 2024-08-22 | UPC_CoA_364/2024 | Court of Appeal | Petition for review of Registrar's decision | motionName.registrar_review | Procedural only | Order of the President of the Court of Appeal on a petition for review of the Registrar's decision refusing registration of an applicant in the list of UPC representatives. The applicant (anonymized) argued he met the requirements of Art. 48(2) UPCA as a European patent attorney and German patent attorney (Patentanwalt). The dispute centred on whether his training in the 1997-1998 'Munich Year' (Münchner Jahr) was equivalent to the 'Law for Patent Attorneys' course at FernUniversität Hagen required under the transitional provisions of the EPLC Rules. The President of the Court of Appeal reviewed the Registrar's two refusal decisions. |
| 2024-08-22 | UPC_CoA_364/2024 | Court of Appeal | Petition for review of Registrar's decision | motionName.registrar_review | Dismissed | The President of the Court of Appeal dismissed the petition for review of the Registrar's decision refusing to enter the applicant (anonymised) on the list of UPC representatives under Art. 48(2) UPCA. The applicant held a DPMA 'Patentassessor' qualification and claimed his 'Munich Year' training was equivalent to the FernUniversität Hagen 'Law for Patent Attorneys' course listed in Rule 12.1(a)(ii) EPLC Rules. The President found no evidence that the curriculum and examination requirements were identical, and rejected the equivalence argument. |
| 2024-06-21 | UPC_CoA_227/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | — | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal ruled on Mala Technologies Ltd.'s appeal against the Paris Central Division's order on a preliminary objection, and its associated request to stay first-instance proceedings pending appeal. The CoA held that a request to stay first-instance proceedings under R. 21.2 RoP must be 'reasoned' in the written statement; submissions first made at an interim conference cannot substitute for that written reasoning. Mala's request to stay was accordingly rejected. The order also summoned the parties to an oral hearing by videoconference. |
| 2024-05-13 | APL_8/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | PI denied | Order by the Court of Appeal (UPC_CoA_1/2024, 13 May 2024) dismissing VusionGroup SA's (formerly SES-imagotag) appeal against the first-instance refusal of a preliminary injunction based on unitary patent EP 3 883 277 (electronic shelf labels). The CoA found that Hanshow's products do not fall within claim 1 because the antenna is not positioned further towards the front face than the circuit board as required; VusionGroup was ordered to bear costs. |
| 2024-05-13 | UPC_CoA_1/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | — | PI denied | Order of the Court of Appeal (Panel 1, with technical judges) dismissing the appeal by VusionGroup SA (formerly SES-imagotag SA) against the Munich Local Division's rejection of its application for provisional measures against Hanshow Technology and related entities regarding electronic shelf labels. The Court of Appeal, applying a balance-of-probabilities standard, found that none of Hanshow's contested products fell within the scope of protection of claim 1 of EP 3 883 277, because the antenna was not positioned more to the front of the label than the printed circuit board as required by the claim. The court held that claim features must always be interpreted in light of the claim as a whole. The appeal was rejected and the appellant was ordered to bear the costs of appeal. |
| 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 | 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. |
| 2024-02-15 | UPC_CoA_2/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic Order | Costs | Procedural only | Procedural order from the Court of Appeal (UPC_CoA_2/2024) on the appeal fee issue in provisional measures proceedings. The appeal concerned a Munich Local Division order declaring the PI application moot after Meril gave an undertaking and cease and desist declaration. The order addressed cost allocation and whether the appeal fee was properly calculated. |
| 2024-02-15 | UPC_CoA_2/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic Order | Costs | Costs only | Procedural order of the Court of Appeal addressing the appeal fee in an appeal by Meril GmbH and Meril Life Sciences against a Munich Local Division order in provisional measures proceedings brought by Edwards Lifesciences Corporation regarding EP 3 763 331 (crimping device for heart valve prostheses). After Meril submitted a cease-and-desist undertaking, Edwards accepted it and the case was resolved without a ruling. The first-instance court ordered Meril to bear costs up to EUR 200,000 and set the action value at EUR 1,500,000. Meril appealed. The Court of Appeal order concerned procedural aspects of the appeal fee payment. |