| 2025-08-13 | UPC_CoA_446/2025 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | — | PI granted | The Court of Appeal set aside the Lisbon Local Division's refusal to grant provisional measures and ordered a preliminary injunction against Zentiva Portugal prohibiting the making, offering, placing on the market or use of nintedanib products (Nintedanib Zentiva 100mg and 150mg soft capsules) for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis in 17 UPC Contracting Member States while EP 1 830 843 remains in force. The court held that completion of national HTA/pricing/reimbursement procedures constitutes imminent infringement. Zentiva was ordered to pay EUR 199,000 as an interim award of costs. The request for an information order was denied. |
| 2025-08-06 | UPC_APP_32529/2025 | Milan CD | Action against the decision of the EPO (RoP97) | motionName.appeal_epo | Dismissed | Order of Central Division Milan Section (duty judge, in French) dismissing Bodycap, CNRS and Université de Rennes' appeal (under R. 97 RoP) against the EPO's rejection of their unitary effect request for EP 3 691 518. The EPO had correctly applied R. 6.2 and R. 7.3 of the Implementing Regulations for Unitary Protection (RPU): after the university reorganisation (Université de Rennes I dissolved and replaced by Université de Rennes), the new address had not been provided in the unitary effect application within the one-month non-extendable deadline under R. 7.3 RPU. Each party bears its own costs. |
| 2025-08-06 | UPC_CFI_195/2025 | Dusseldorf LD | Generic application | — | Procedural only | The Düsseldorf Local Division granted the claimants' request to stay infringement proceedings (and the related counterclaim for revocation) concerning EP 4 252 857 pending the outcome of the appeal against the first-instance decision in related case UPC_CFI_505/2024 (concerning EP 3 536 712). The court found that both cases involve the same factual and legal infringement questions and that a stay serves efficient use of judicial and party resources. |
| 2025-08-04 | UPC_CFI_519/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Generic Order | Procedural | Procedural only | Düsseldorf Local Division issued a procedural order on the handling of multiple related infringement actions and counterclaims for revocation concerning three patents, deciding on the approach under Art. 33(3)(a) UPCA before close of written procedure. |
| 2025-08-01 | ACT_39091/2024 | Paris LD | Infringement Action | Infringement merits | Not infringed | Decision on the merits of the Paris Local Division dismissing all infringement claims by N.J DIFFUSION SARL (in collective insolvency proceedings, assisted by its judicial administrator) against GISELA MAYER GmbH for infringement of EP 2 404 516 (edge-to-edge ribbon design), both direct and by equivalence. The Court found that the patent's scope is limited to edge-to-edge placement as defined in the claims, and no infringement was established. N.J DIFFUSION must bear all costs (fixed at EUR 50,000 as a claim against the insolvency estate). |
| 2025-08-01 | UPC_CoA_70/2025 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | Court of Appeal ruled on confidentiality and access restriction requests in the STRABAG vs. SWARCO appeal proceedings. The Court clarified that access and use restrictions for information against a party and its representatives can only be ordered under R.262A RoP. A late application in appeal for restrictions on information filed in first-instance proceedings is inadmissible. The Court imposed confidentiality obligations on Swarco regarding Chainzone's product characteristics. |
| 2025-08-01 | UPC_CFI_100/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Generic Order | Procedural | Procedural only | Procedural order requiring further written submissions from the parties in the infringement action concerning patent ownership and the presentation of exhibits. The court noted inconsistencies in the claimant's statements on patent ownership and directed supplementary presentations. |
| 2025-08-01 | UPC_CFI_54/2024 | Munich LD | Infringement Action | — | Revoked | Munich Local Division found that European Patent 2 391 947 (Headwater, relating to Android device network management) is invalid in all forms including as amended. The panel cancelled the second oral hearing planned for September 2025, indicating the patent was found invalid both as granted and in all amended forms proposed by Headwater. The infringement action was therefore dismissed. |
| 2025-07-31 | ACT_953/2024 | Nordic-Baltic RD | Infringement Action | Infringement merits | Infringed | Decision by Nordic-Baltic Regional Division (UPC_CFI_9/2024, 31 July 2025) finding Sioen NV liable for infringement of EP 2 186 428 B2 (protective workwear / clothing) across 16 UPC member states. An injunction was granted, product recall and destruction ordered, information on sales required, damages declared owing, and EUR 50,000 awarded as interim legal costs. All other requests were dismissed. |
| 2025-07-31 | UPC_CFI_361/2023 | Paris CD | Generic Order | — | Withdrawn | Decision of Central Division Paris Seat allowing Toyota Motor Europe's withdrawal of its revocation action against Neo Wireless GmbH & Co. KG (EP 3 876 490) under R. 265 RoP. The proceedings had previously been stayed by agreement of the parties. Toyota's withdrawal was consented to by Neo Wireless. The court partially granted the reimbursement of court fees: 40% under R. 370.9(b)(iii) RoP (after closure of the interim procedure but before the oral hearing). |
| 2025-07-30 | ACT_3932/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Infringement Action | Infringement merits | Revoked | The Düsseldorf Local Division dismissed Headwater Research LLC's infringement action against Samsung and revoked European patent EP 3 110 069 B1 to the extent of claim 1, on the basis of a successful counterclaim for revocation; all costs were borne by the claimant. The court also rejected a new argument on added matter as inadmissible under R. 9.2 RoP. |
| 2025-07-30 | UPC_CFI_208/2024 | Munich LD | Application RoP262.1 (b) | — | Procedural only | Procedural order (in German) granting Renault SAS (a third party allegedly threatened with infringement of EP 1 770 912 B1 by Avago Technologies) access to the case file and register under Rule 262.1(b) RoP for the completed proceedings, which were terminated by withdrawal of both the infringement action and counterclaim for revocation. The court confirmed that third-party access may be granted to closed proceedings. |
| 2025-07-29 | ACT_7567/2025 | Munich LD | Infringement Action | Procedural | Procedural only | The Munich Local Division issued a scheduling order in the Jinko Solar v. LONGi solar patent infringement proceedings, setting dates for the interim conference (February 2026) and oral hearing (May 2026), and indicating that both infringement and validity would be handled by the Local Division. |
| 2025-07-29 | UPC_CFI_336/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | Procedural order in infringement action by Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd. against Aiko/Memodo/Libra/VDH Solar/PowerDeal/Coenergia entities (EP 3 065 184 B1, solar panels) on the cost ceiling under Rule 158 RoP. The court held that when a claim is brought against multiple defendants without specifying their respective liability, all defendants must have an equal opportunity to defend against the alleged infringement as a whole, and the cost ceiling should reflect the claim as brought against all defendants collectively. |
| 2025-07-28 | ACT_63643/2024 | Lisbon LD | Infringement Action | Procedural | Procedural only | Lisbon Local Division scheduling order in Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v. ASUSTek Computer Inc. (EP 2 819 131 B1). Both parties agreed on appointment of a technically qualified judge and joint hearing of infringement and revocation counterclaim. Oral hearing scheduled for 25 March 2026. The court found no need to rule on alignment of reply deadlines as service of the SoD and CCR was established. |
| 2025-07-28 | UPC_CFI_492/2025 | Munich LD | Generic application | — | Procedural only | The Munich Local Division issued a procedural order granting Roborock Germany GmbH (and co-defendants Beijing Roborock Technology Co., Ltd. and Roborock International B.V.) an extension of time for filing their preliminary objection, Statement of Defence and counterclaim for revocation in the infringement action brought by Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG concerning EP 3 030 943. The extension was agreed by the claimant and was justified by case complexity and the need to align deadlines across all defendants. |
| 2025-07-28 | UPC_CFI_239/2024 | Paris CD | Revocation Action | Revocation merits | Patent amended | The Central Division Paris rejected the revocation action filed by an anonymous claimant against Essetre Holding spa in respect of EP 2 875 923 B1 (a machine for machining walls). The patent was maintained in amended form as submitted in the Principal Request on 8 August 2024. The Court interpreted 'a working surface' as meaning 'one working surface', applying the ordinary meaning in context of the description and drawings. The revocation action was dismissed as the defendant had submitted a patent limitation during proceedings. Costs were apportioned 70% to the claimant and 30% to the defendant. The case value for costs purposes was set at EUR 100,000. |
| 2025-07-24 | UPC_CoA_614/2025 | 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 anonymised applicant on the UPC representative list. The applicant held a certificate from Politecnico di Milano dated 1 March 2024, listed under Rule 12.1(a) EPLC Rules, but filed the registration application on 18 April 2025, after the 3 June 2024 deadline. The applicant argued the deadline applied only to acquisition of the qualification, not to registration, but the President rejected this interpretation. The transitional period was found not to violate equality and proportionality principles. |
| 2025-07-24 | UPC_CoA_521/2025 | 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 anonymised applicant on the UPC representative list. The applicant held a certificate from Politecnico di Milano ('Certificato di superamento dell'esame conclusivo del Corso di Proprietà Industriale - Brevetti') dated 9 June 2023. This course was listed in Rule 12.1(a)(xii) EPLC Rules but required filing within one year of UPC Agreement entry into force (by 3 June 2024). The applicant filed on 27 March 2025. A clerical error in the applicant's paralegal department did not constitute sufficient justification for re-establishment of rights. |
| 2025-07-24 | UPC_CoA_347/2025 | 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 anonymised applicant (Italian patent attorney) on the UPC representative list. The applicant held a CEIPI diploma obtained 28 January 2022 (before CEIPI accreditation) and filed on 21 February 2025, after the 3 June 2024 deadline under Rule 12.1 EPLC Rules. Health-related circumstances (sick leave from April 2024 to January 2025 following an accident) did not justify re-establishment of rights, as the applicant had not demonstrated inability to file despite assistance being available. The one-year Rule 12.1 transitional period was found not to violate principles of equality and proportionality. |
| 2025-07-24 | UPC_CoA_300/2025 | 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 anonymised applicant on the UPC representative list. The applicant held a CEIPI diploma on 'Patent litigation in Europe' obtained on 8 July 2022 (before CEIPI was accredited by the UPC Administrative Committee in November 2023), which qualified under Rule 12.1(a) EPLC Rules but required filing within one year of UPC Agreement entry into force (by 3 June 2024). The applicant filed on 15 November 2024, after the deadline. The President found no 'de facto continuity' between Rule 12 and Rule 1 EPLC Rules that would give the accreditation retroactive effect. |
| 2025-07-24 | UPC_CoA_24/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 265 | — | Settled | Decision of the Court of Appeal dated 24 July 2025 granting withdrawal of all proceedings in the appeal by HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY (HPDC) and the cross-appeal by LAMA FRANCE, following an out-of-court settlement. The underlying Paris Local Division decision of 13 November 2024 had found EP 2 089 230 invalid and EP 1 737 669 infringed by LAMA. Both parties withdrew their appeals and the proceedings were declared closed. A 60% reimbursement of court fees before the Court of Appeal was ordered for both parties. No cost decision was required as both parties agreed. |
| 2025-07-23 | UPC_CFI_365/2023 | Mannheim LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | Mannheim Local Division issued an enforcement order imposing penalty payments on Kodak entities for non-compliance with the obligation to destroy infringing embodiments under a prior decision. The Court granted Fujifilm's application for imposition of penalties for each week of non-compliance, while rejecting other enforcement requests. Defendants bear the costs. |
| 2025-07-22 | CC_65201/2024 | Milan CD | Counterclaim for infringement | Infringement merits | Infringed | The Milan Central Division issued a landmark decision finding infringement of EP 4 201 327 (Insulet Corporation) by EOFLOW Co., Ltd. by default on the counterclaim for infringement, following EOFLOW's failure to defend. The court also decided by default on the revocation action (finding insufficient grounds for revocation) and resolved costs of the preliminary injunction proceedings. The court ordered EOFLOW to cease and desist from infringing activities across all UPC contracting member states, recall products from the market, remove products from channels of commerce, destroy infringing products, and provide full information on the extent of infringement. The court applied a unitary approach to cost caps where two parallel proceedings concerned the same patent and infringement acts. |
| 2025-07-22 | ACT_56003/2024 | Milan CD | Revocation Action | Revocation merits | Infringed | Milan Central Division decision by default on EOFLOW's revocation action (dismissed) and on Insulet's counterclaim for infringement of a patent for wearable insulin delivery devices (patch pump). EOFLOW failed to defend and the Court verified sufficiency of evidence before issuing the default decision. The Court upheld Insulet's infringement claim and granted an injunction ordering EOFLOW to cease infringing acts, provide information/accounts, recall infringing products, and pay compensation for damages since 19 June 2024. The revocation action by EOFLOW was dismissed for lack of prosecution. Costs borne by EOFLOW. Patent terms interpreted according to principal functional meaning. The cost cap applies per instance regardless of number of parties or patents (Administrative Committee decision of 24 March 2023). |
| 2025-07-21 | UPC_CFI_361/2025 | Paris LD | Application RoP262A | Procedural | Procedural only | Procedural order on Sun Patent Trust's application for confidentiality protection (Rules 262.2 and 262A RoP) of highly confidential information in its infringement action against Vivo. The court set conditions for access by Vivo's representatives and named in-house employees to the unredacted statement of claim, rejecting certain overly restrictive constraints proposed by the claimant. |
| 2025-07-21 | UPC_CFI_231/2024 | Paris CD | Revocation Action | Revocation merits | Patent maintained | Decision of the Paris Central Division dismissing the revocation action by Sibio Technology Limited against Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. concerning EP 3 831 283 B1 (glucose monitoring device / CGM sensor). All grounds for revocation (lack of novelty and inventive step) failed. The patent is maintained as granted. Abbott (defendant/patentee) awarded costs. Key headnotes: novelty and inventive step are separate grounds and cannot be combined against the same prior art; grounds for revocation of dependent claims must be stated from the outset; Rule 75(3) RoP does not apply when a counterclaim for revocation in a subsequent infringement action is filed after the oral hearing in an earlier revocation action. |
| 2025-07-21 | UPC_CFI_380/2023 | Nordic-Baltic RD | Infringement Action | — | outcomeName.other | Decision of the Nordic-Baltic Regional Division dated 21 July 2025 (anonymised) in Edwards Lifesciences Corporation's infringement action against Meril Life Sciences Pvt Limited and related entities regarding EP 3 769 722 (heart valve delivery system). The decision covers the infringement action and multiple counterclaims for revocation filed by Meril entities, as well as applications to amend the patent. The oral hearing was held on 16 January 2025, with further pleadings submitted after the hearing regarding parallel EPO opposition proceedings. The operative part of the decision is not included in the available excerpt; however given the case involves both infringement claims and revocation counterclaims with patent amendment applications, a substantive ruling on both infringement and validity is expected. |
| 2025-07-21 | UPC_CFI_8/2023 | Nordic-Baltic RD | Application Rop 365 | — | Settled | The court confirmed a settlement agreement between Edwards Lifesciences Corporation and the Meril defendants (Meril Lifesciences PVT Limited, Meril GmbH, SMIS International OÜ, and Sormedica UAB) in the infringement action and related counterclaims for revocation concerning EP 2 628 464. Both the infringement action and counterclaims for revocation were settled and confirmed by decision. The court also ordered partial reimbursement of court fees. |
| 2025-07-18 | CC_54050/2024 | Milan CD | Counterclaim for revocation | Procedural | Procedural only | The Milan Central Division issued a procedural order following an interim conference in this counterclaim for revocation, setting the schedule and framework for the oral hearing and managing witness declarations. |
| 2025-07-18 | ACT_48305/2024 | Milan CD | Revocation Action | Procedural | Procedural only | Procedural order issued after the interim conference of 14 July 2025 in a revocation/counterclaim for revocation action concerning EP 3 756 767. The order sets out case management decisions including the oral hearing schedule, treatment of declarants, submission deadlines, and requests parties to agree on the value of the action. |
| 2025-07-17 | UPC_CFI_145/2024 | Munich LD | Generic Order | — | Procedural only | Procedural order of the Munich Local Division (presiding judge Zigann) following the interim conference of 17 July 2025 in four consolidated pharmaceutical patent infringement actions by Sanofi and related entities against generics companies (Accord Healthcare, STADA, Dr. Reddy's, Zentiva) concerning EP 2 493 466. Points addressed: EPO Board of Appeal had upheld the patent but had not yet published its written reasoned decision; French parallel first-instance decisions invalidating the French designation were under appeal; defendants wished to comment on EPO BoA written reasons within three weeks of availability. No substantive infringement ruling. |
| 2025-07-15 | UPC_CoA_2/2025 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | Court of Appeal order concerning VALINEA's application for review of an order to preserve evidence granted to TIRU at first instance. The CoA upheld the first-instance order, confirming that: the time taken to file the application for evidence preservation did not undermine urgency; the risk of unavailability of evidence was assessed by probability not certainty; and the applicant's duty of candour was not violated. The appeal by VALINEA was dismissed. |
| 2025-07-15 | UPC_CoA_2/2025 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | French-language signed version of the Court of Appeal order in VALINEA v. TIRU. Identical in substance to the English version: VALINEA's application for review of the evidence preservation order was dismissed; the first-instance order in favour of TIRU was upheld. |
| 2025-07-15 | UPC_CFI_302/2024 | Munich LD | Hearing | — | Procedural only | Procedural order scheduling an additional interim hearing on the topic of FRAND licensing on 21 July 2025, to be held in person in English, in camera (non-public), in the parallel case UPC_CFI_302/2024 and UPC_CFI_667/2024 (Lenovo v. ASUSTek). |
| 2025-07-14 | ACT_67704/2024 | Munich CD | Revocation Action | Procedural | Procedural only | Munich Central Division (Section) issued a procedural order following an interim hearing (Rule 105.5 RoP) in a revocation action concerning EP 4 019 790. Key decisions: (1) value in dispute set at EUR 500,000; (2) admissibility of exhibit P&A 18 (a Board of Appeal decision on another patent) deferred to the oral hearing; (3) patent amendment workflow issue resolved; (4) cost ceiling of EUR 56,000 noted; (5) oral hearing scheduled for 16 October 2025. |
| 2025-07-12 | APL_55849/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | Court of Appeal order (12 July 2025) in proceedings between Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy and Microsoft Corporation and others. Only digital signatures are present in the extracted text; the substantive content of this order cannot be determined from the available material. |
| 2025-07-12 | APL_19133/2025 | Court of Appeal | Request for a discretionary review (RoP 220.3) | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal issued a very short order in Microsoft v Suinno (UPC_CoA, R. 220.3 RoP discretionary review proceedings). The document contains only digital signatures and minimal content, indicating a short procedural decision. Based on the document's minimal text, this appears to be a formal procedural order closing or acknowledging the proceedings. |
| 2025-07-10 | ACT_19746/2024 | Hamburg LD | Infringement Action | Infringement merits | Partially revoked | Final decision from Hamburg Local Division in infringement action by Nera Innovations Ltd. against Xiaomi entities concerning EP 2 642 632 (wireless power receiver). The infringement claim was dismissed as the patent was found to be substantially invalid. The patent was revoked in its main claim form, but maintained in a limited amended form (auxiliary requests 1 and 2). The counterclaim for revocation beyond those auxiliary requests was also dismissed. Costs of the infringement action borne by claimant; costs of counterclaim split 20% claimant / 80% defendants. Case value set at EUR 3,750,000. |
| 2025-07-10 | ACT_19746/2024 | Hamburg LD | Infringement Action | Procedural | Procedural only | Hamburg Local Division correction order (R. 353 RoP) correcting several factual errors in its judgment of 10 July 2025 in the Nera Innovations v. Xiaomi infringement proceedings. The corrections related to the patent transfer history (incorrect description of LG Innotek transfer) and heading numbering errors. |
| 2025-07-10 | UPC_CFI_213/2025 | Dusseldorf LD | Application for provisional measures | Preliminary injunction | PI granted | The Düsseldorf Local Division granted Aesculap AG a preliminary injunction against Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe) based on EP 2 892 442 B1 (surgical instrument), with the court proceeding on the merits despite the defendant's non-appearance at the oral hearing; the defendant's general denial without substantive engagement was deemed inadequate. |
| 2025-07-09 | APL_23095/2025 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal reversed the first-instance order and ordered JingAo Solar Co., Ltd. (a Chinese company) to provide €200,000 security for costs within one month, finding that the lack of EU/EEA recognition and enforcement guarantees for a cost award against a non-EU party is a relevant factor justifying security under the rules on security for costs. |
| 2025-07-09 | CC_51398/2024 | Mannheim LD | Counterclaim for revocation | Procedural | Procedural only | The Mannheim Local Division issued preliminary remarks and questions for the oral hearing in the Total Semiconductor v. Texas Instruments infringement and revocation proceedings concerning EP 2 746 957, identifying key issues related to claim interpretation and validity. |
| 2025-07-09 | UPC_CFI_445/2025 | Mannheim LD | Application for provisional measures | Procedural | Procedural only | The Mannheim Local Division issued a procedural order addressing service of the anti-anti-suit injunction application by InterDigital against Walt Disney entities in proceedings relating to EP 2 465 265, EP 3 259 902, EP 2 080 349, and EP 2 449 782 (video coding SEPs). |
| 2025-07-09 | UPC_CoA_430/2025 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | — | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal ordered Chint New Energy Technology Co., Ltd. to provide security for costs of EUR 200,000 in an infringement appeal after finding that Chint, a Chinese company, failed to demonstrate sufficient financial means. The Court upheld an appeal against the Munich Local Division's partial refusal to order the other five defendants to provide security, confirming the original grant of security against Chint while declining to extend it to the other co-defendants. |
| 2025-07-03 | APL_8639/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application to leave to appeal a cost decision (RoP221) | Costs | Costs only | The Court of Appeal dismissed Tiroler Rohre GmbH's appeal against the first-instance costs decision following withdrawal of the infringement action, confirming the general applicability of R. 150 ff. RoP for cost assessment proceedings after withdrawal under R. 265 RoP. The court confirmed that cost assessment after action withdrawal follows the standard R. 150 ff. procedure and that the appeal review is marginal (limited to whether the awarded amount is unreasonable or contrary to Art. 69(1) UPCA). The costs award of EUR 84,033.76 to SSAB was upheld. |
| 2025-07-03 | UPC_CoA_221/2025 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | — | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal ruled on the number of US attorneys permitted to access confidential information in infringement proceedings by NST against Qualcomm. The court ordered that only one trusted US attorney (rather than multiple as NST requested) be granted access to confidential information, balancing NST's right to an effective remedy against Qualcomm's legitimate expectation of adequate confidentiality protection. |
| 2025-07-03 | UPC_CoA_153/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application to leave to appeal a cost decision (RoP221) | — | Costs only | The Court of Appeal dismissed Tiroler Rohre's appeal against the Munich Local Division's cost order following withdrawal of its application for provisional measures. The Court held that the ordinary cost rules (R. 150 et seq. RoP) apply to cost decisions following withdrawal under R. 265 RoP; no special rule applies requiring reference to the panel rather than the standing judge. The legal review on appeal is limited to a marginal review of whether costs awarded are reasonable and proportionate (Art. 69(1) UPCA). The judge-rapporteur's detailed cost assessment showed no such deviation. |
| 2025-06-30 | UPC_CFI_181/2024 | Paris CD | Application RoP262.1 (b) | — | Procedural only | Procedural order from the Paris Central Division (Seat) dated 30 June 2025 granting Acer Computer GmbH's application under R. 262.1(b) RoP for public access to written pleadings and evidence filed in proceedings concerning an application to amend patent EP 2 661 892 B1 (Nokia Technologies Oy vs HP Printing). The court found Acer had a specific interest in the validity of the patent given that Nokia had brought an infringement action against Acer based on the same patent. Access was granted without ongoing confidentiality obligations post-access. |
| 2025-06-30 | UPC_CFI_181/2024 | Paris CD | Application RoP262.1 (b) | — | Procedural only | Procedural order granting Bardehle Pagenberg Partnerschaft mbB (a third-party applicant) access to written pleadings and evidence filed in the proceedings, subject to a confidentiality obligation while proceedings are pending. The court held that public access may be granted before proceedings end and the court may impose conditions to protect the integrity of proceedings. |