| 2026-01-08 | UPC_CFI_377/2025 | Milan LD | Infringement Action | Procedural | Procedural only | The Milan Local Division partially granted Primetals Technologies' application for an order to produce evidence under Art. 59 UPCA / R. 190 RoP, requiring Danieli to disclose documents relating to alleged infringement of EP 2 624 977 in steel coiling installations supplied to Hoa Phat Group in Vietnam. |
| 2025-12-02 | UPC_CoA_894/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 223 | Procedural | Procedural only | Order of the Court of Appeal single judge on Windhager Handelsgesellschaft's application for suspensive effect (Rule 223 RoP) of its appeal against the Mannheim Local Division judgment largely upholding bellissa HAAS GmbH's infringement action for EP 2 223 589 and rejecting Windhager's revocation counterclaim. Windhager alleged obvious errors in the first-instance assessment of direct infringement and the rejection of the revocation counterclaim. The order addressed the admissibility of the application (corrected after formality defects) and the substantive criteria for granting suspensive effect. |
| 2025-10-07 | UPC_CFI_216/2024 | Brussels LD | Infringement Action | Infringement merits | Settled | The Brussels Local Division confirmed the settlement (dadingsovereenkomst) between Cretes NV and Hyler BV in the infringement action and counterclaim for revocation proceedings, and ordered partial reimbursement of court fees under R. 370(9)(c) and (e) RoP. |
| 2025-06-25 | ORD_17811/2025 | Milan CD | Decision By Default | Default judgment | Permanent injunction | The Milan Central Division issued a decision by default against Spiridonakis Bros GP (Greece) in favour of Maschio Gaspardo S.p.A. (Italy) concerning EP 1 998 604 (agricultural reversible subsoiler tools). The defendant failed to enter proceedings. The Court found that the 'Bellota tool' sold by Spiridonakis constituted infringement of claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 9 and 10 of the patent. The Court issued a permanent injunction against further infringement in Italy, Germany, France, Romania and Bulgaria with a EUR 500 per-set penalty, ordered disclosure of distribution chain information (EUR 100/day penalty for non-compliance), and awarded EUR 25,000 for legal costs plus reimbursement of court fees. The Court applied the 'double territoriality' requirement of Art. 26 UPCA, finding that an offer and the act of putting into effect need not occur in the same Contracting Member State for bundle patents. |
| 2025-05-13 | UPC_APP_45185/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Generic application | Costs | Costs only | Düsseldorf Local Division determined costs in UPC_CFI_7/2023 (Franz Kaldewei GmbH & Co. KG v Bette GmbH & Co. KG, first-ever UPC decision on the merits). The court ordered Bette (the unsuccessful defendant) to reimburse Kaldewei EUR 84,950 in total costs, rejecting Bette's challenge to the reasonableness of the amount. The court noted the extra effort required for the first substantive UPC decision as a justification for higher costs. |
| 2025-02-20 | UPC_APP_6987/2025 | Brussels LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | Brussels Local Division (20 February 2025) ruled on HYLER BV's contested addition of new non-infringement arguments and a new document in its rejoinder. The panel rejected the primary request, upheld the alternative request in part, and excluded certain paragraphs of HYLER's rejoinder (paragraphs 506–510) from consideration, finding they introduced new arguments not justified by Cretes' reply submissions. The request for an extra week to respond was also rendered moot. |
| 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. |
| 2024-02-15 | 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. |
| 2023-12-01 | UPC_CFI_7/2023 | Dusseldorf LD | Infringement Action | Procedural | Procedural only | The Düsseldorf Local Division decided under Rule 37.2 RoP to proceed with infringement and validity issues together (Article 33(3)(a) UPCA) in the patent dispute between Franz Kaldewei GmbH & Co. KG and Bette GmbH & Co. KG concerning EP 3 375 337 B1. |