| 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. |
| 2024-09-06 | APL_47300/2024 | Court of Appeal | Request for a discretionary review (RoP 220.3) | motionName.appeal_decision | Dismissed | The Court of Appeal rejected Motorola's request for a discretionary review of a Munich Local Division order that had denied leave to change its claim, finding that Motorola had not demonstrated that review was necessary to ensure consistent application and interpretation of the Rules of Procedure. |
| 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. |
| 2024-06-21 | 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. |