| 2024-06-20 | UPC_CoA_234/2024 | Court of Appeal | Application RoP262A | — | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal ruled that a non-appealed confidentiality order (Rule 262A RoP) made by the Court of First Instance continues to apply in appeal proceedings. No new Rule 262A order is required where the same already-protected information appears in another document lodged in the appeal. |
| 2024-06-19 | UPC_APP_35055/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | Court of Appeal (Panel 2) procedural order rejecting ICPillar LLC's application for suspensive effect of a Paris Local Division order requiring ICPillar to provide security for costs of EUR 600,000 (R. 158 RoP), and also rejecting ICPillar's subordinate request for expedition of the appeal. The Court held that suspensive effect under Art. 74(1) UPCA is in principle available for R. 220.2 RoP orders (notwithstanding R. 223.5 RoP), but that only exceptional circumstances justify granting it. No exceptional circumstances existed here – the risk of a default judgment if ICPillar fails to comply is an inherent feature of non-compliance, and is not sufficient to grant suspensive effect. |
| 2024-06-17 | UPC_CoA_221/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | — | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal ruled on Audi AG's request to file additional written pleadings (R. 36 RoP) in an appeal against a first-instance order denying Audi's application for security for costs (R. 158 RoP) in infringement proceedings brought against it by Network System Technologies LLC. The CoA held that R. 101-110 apply mutatis mutandis in appeal proceedings, and that R. 35 and R. 36 are therefore applicable on appeal. The Court granted Audi's request to submit a brief reply to correct facts stated by NST in its response. |
| 2024-06-04 | UPC_APP_31209/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal (second panel) addressed Nera Innovations' request for partial withdrawal of its appeal against two of four Xiaomi defendants, establishing principles on when partial withdrawal of an appeal is permissible under R. 265 RoP and whether the other parties have legitimate interests in a full decision. |
| 2024-06-04 | UPC_APP_30470/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | motionName.appeal_decision | Dismissed | Court of Appeal (4 June 2024) rejected Daedalus Prime LLC's application to partially withdraw its appeal as against Xiaomi NL and Xiaomi DE only. The CoA held that those respondents had been served, had responded to the appeal, and had a legitimate interest in having the appeal adjudicated in relation to them, so partial withdrawal would impermissibly deprive them of their right to be heard. |
| 2024-06-04 | APL_9578/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Dismissed | Court of Appeal (4 June 2024) rejected Neo Wireless's appeal and confirmed that the opt-out filed by Neo Wireless LLC (USA) for all EPC states was invalid because it was not filed on behalf of all proprietors of all national parts of the patent (Neo Wireless GmbH & Co. KG held the German part). Art. 83(3) UPCA requires all proprietors of all national parts to lodge or authorise an opt-out. |
| 2024-05-22 | UPC_APP_27157/2024 | Court of Appeal | Application for an Order for expedition of an appeal (RoP225(e)) | motionName.appeal_decision | Dismissed | The Court of Appeal rejected Texas Instruments' request to expedite appeal proceedings against a Munich Local Division order that had dismissed their application for security for costs, finding the request too unspecified and insufficiently substantiated. |
| 2024-05-22 | UPC_APP_29007/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal denied Audi AG's request to expedite its appeal against the dismissal of an application for security for costs in the NST v. Audi infringement action, finding the request too unspecified and insufficiently substantiated. |
| 2024-05-22 | UPC_APP_29005/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | Procedural | Dismissed | The Court of Appeal denied Volkswagen's request to expedite the appeal and shorten deadlines under Rules 225(e) and 9.3(b) RoP, finding the request too unspecified and insufficiently substantiated. |
| 2024-05-22 | UPC_APP_29006/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | Procedural | Dismissed | The UPC Court of Appeal denied Audi AG's request to expedite the appeal against the Munich Local Division's refusal to order security for costs from Network System Technologies LLC in infringement proceedings concerning EP1875683, finding the request too unspecific and insufficiently substantiated. |
| 2024-05-22 | UPC_APP_28997/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal denied Volkswagen's request to expedite its appeal against a first-instance order dismissing its application for security for costs, finding the request too unspecific and insufficiently substantiated. No expedition was granted. |
| 2024-05-22 | UPC_APP_27159/2024 | Court of Appeal | Application for an Order for expedition of an appeal (RoP225(e)) | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | Court of Appeal rejected Texas Instruments' application for expedition of an appeal (Rule 225(e) and Rule 9.3(b) RoP) in UPC_CoA_225/2024, an appeal against a first-instance order dismissing security for costs applications. Texas Instruments failed to explain why there was a particular interest in shortening NST's 15-day response deadline, and the further request to shorten all future deadlines was too unspecified. |
| 2024-05-22 | UPC_CoA_220/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | — | Dismissed | Court of Appeal denied Volkswagen's request for expedition of the appeal (R.225(e) and R.9.3(b) RoP) against a first-instance order refusing security for costs. The Court held that the request was too unspecified and insufficiently substantiated to justify shortening future time periods at this stage of proceedings. |
| 2024-05-22 | UPC_CoA_221/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | — | Procedural only | Court of Appeal denied Audi's request to expedite the appeal and shorten deadlines (Rule 225(e), Rule 9.3(b) RoP) in its appeal against the dismissal of its security for costs application. The request was denied as too unspecified and insufficiently substantiated. |
| 2024-05-22 | UPC_CoA_224/2024 | Court of Appeal | Application for an Order for expedition of an appeal (RoP225(e)) | — | Dismissed | Court of Appeal denied Texas Instruments' request for expedition of the appeal (R.225(e) and R.9.3(b) RoP) against a first-instance order refusing security for costs. The request was too unspecified and insufficiently substantiated to justify shortening deadlines at this stage. |
| 2024-05-01 | UPC_APP_23543/2024 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 333 | Procedural | Procedural only | Court of Appeal (Second Panel) dismissed Daedalus Prime LLC's request for panel review of an order refusing extension of time for the Statement of Grounds of Appeal. The panel found no grounds to deviate from the judge-rapporteur's order, holding that the desire to present a thorough analysis or obtain a legal opinion does not justify extension. |
| 2024-04-17 | APL_12116/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | The UPC Court of Appeal upheld the President of the Court of First Instance's refusal to change the language of proceedings from German to English in 10x Genomics' provisional measures application against Curio Bioscience concerning EP2697391, finding that the interests of the parties were balanced and the defendant's position was the decisive factor. |
| 2024-04-17 | APL_12116/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | Court of Appeal set aside the President of the CFI's order refusing to change the language of proceedings from German to English in the provisional measures case before the Düsseldorf Local Division. The CoA held that, considering all relevant circumstances (Curio Bioscience is a US company with no connection to Germany, the patent was granted in English, the technology field predominantly uses English), the language of proceedings shall be English. The impugned order of 26 February 2024 was set aside and the language changed to English. |
| 2024-04-11 | UPC_APP_17551/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | Order of the Court of Appeal setting out the time period for filing a Statement of appeal under Rule 220.2 RoP where leave to appeal is granted in the impugned order itself. The Court held that the 15-day period runs from service of the order containing the grant of leave (whether in the impugned order itself or in a separate order). The appeal arises from Neo Wireless GmbH & Co KG challenging rejection of a preliminary objection in revocation proceedings concerning EP 3 876 490 brought by Toyota Motor Europe. |
| 2024-04-10 | UPC_CoA_404/2023 | Court of Appeal | Generic Order | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | Decision of the Court of Appeal dated 10 April 2024 concerning a request by a member of the public for access to written pleadings and evidence under R. 262.1(b) RoP in the Ocado v. Autostore proceedings. The CoA ruled on the composition of its panel (no technically qualified judges required for purely non-technical matters under Art. 9(1) UPCA), on the standard for public access requests (balancing public interest, confidentiality and personal data protection), and distinguished R. 262.1(b) requests from R. 262.3 applications. The order deals with procedural matters of public register access; no substantive patent ruling was made. |
| 2024-03-28 | UPC_APP_12137/2024 | Court of Appeal | — | Procedural | Procedural only | Order of the Court of Appeal (Panel 2) on an application by Curio Bioscience Inc. for restriction of access to confidential information under Rule 262A RoP. Curio sought to limit access to an unredacted document (CR-3) in the context of a pending language-change appeal. The Court held that a first-instance Rule 262A order restricting access to certain documents retains its force during appeal proceedings even if not directly challenged on appeal, and continues to govern access until the conclusion of the entire proceedings. Access to the confidential document was maintained restricted to specified persons. |
| 2024-03-28 | UPC_APP_12137/2024 | Court of Appeal | — | Procedural | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal (Second Panel) ruled that the confidentiality order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division on 11 March 2024 under R. 262A RoP (restricting access to document CR-3) continues to apply in the appeal proceedings, making Curio Bioscience's separate request for a confidentiality protection order in the appeal superfluous. The existing order covers 'outside these proceedings' broadly, including the appeal. No new order needed. |
| 2024-03-21 | UPC_CoA_486/2023 | Court of Appeal | Request for a discretionary review (RoP 220.3) | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | Order of the Court of Appeal (Panel 2) on a request for discretionary review under Rule 220.3 RoP. The appeal arose from a preliminary objection ruling in Huawei v. Netgear. The Court of Appeal laid down important procedural headnotes: (1) case management decisions of the judge-rapporteur cannot be directly appealed but must first be reviewed by the panel under Rule 333.1 RoP; (2) the judge-rapporteur's decision to deal with the preliminary objection in the main proceedings is such a case management decision; (3) rejection of a preliminary objection may be appealed with leave under Rule 220.2 RoP, optionally bypassing the panel review. The Court addressed the admissibility and scope of discretionary review. |
| 2024-03-11 | APL_4881/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal partially upheld Netgear's appeal against the Munich Local Division's order concerning deadlines following Huawei's extension of its infringement action to a second patent, setting the new time limit for Netgear's statement of defence (and any counterclaim for revocation) to 18 April 2024 instead of 11 March 2024, on the basis that due process requires defendants to receive the same full response period as for a new action. |
| 2024-03-11 | APL_4881/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | Order from the Court of Appeal (UPC_CoA_36/2024) on Netgear's appeal against the Munich Local Division's order permitting Huawei to expand its infringement action to add EP 3 678 321 alongside EP 3 611 989. The appeal was withdrawn during the interim conference after Huawei agreed to grant Netgear a three-month response period from the original first-instance panel order. The Court ruled on the principle that when a new patent is added by way of case expansion, the defendant must receive the same response period as if a new action had been filed. |
| 2024-03-11 | APL_5395/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal (second panel) set aside the Munich Local Division's order separating the action based on EP 3 678 321 and established that when a new patent is added to pending proceedings under R. 263 RoP, the defendant must receive the same response time as for a new action. |
| 2024-03-11 | APL_5395/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | Court of Appeal procedural order on an appeal against a first-instance order that had severed an amended/expanded infringement claim relating to EP 3678321 from the main action. The appeal concerned the deadline for filing a statement of defence following an amendment of the claim (R. 263 RoP). The Court of Appeal held that, as a matter of due process, when a new patent is added by way of an amended claim, the defendant must be given the same period to respond as would apply if a fresh action had been filed. |
| 2024-03-11 | UPC_CoA_335/2023 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | PI denied | Order of the Court of Appeal revoking the Munich Local Division's provisional measures order in favour of NanoString Technologies Inc. and NanoString Technologies Germany GmbH and NanoString Technologies Netherlands B.V. against President and Fellows of Harvard College and 10x Genomics, Inc. concerning EP 4 108 782 (multiplex in situ detection). The Court of Appeal found that the balance of probabilities indicated the patent was likely invalid (lack of inventive step) given prior art D6, such that a sufficient degree of certainty under Rule 211.2 RoP was lacking. Applicants bear costs. The order sets out important principles on patent claim interpretation, claim scope, and the standard for granting provisional measures. |
| 2024-03-11 | UPC_CoA_335/2023 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | PI denied | Court of Appeal rectification order correcting a slip in Headnote 2 of the 26 February 2024 order. The corrected headnote confirms that the patent claim is the decisive basis (not merely a starting point) for determining the scope of protection under Art. 69 EPC; the provisional measures application against NanoString was ultimately denied by the CoA as the patent was more likely than not invalid. |
| 2024-03-11 | UPC_CoA_335/2023 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | PI denied | Court of Appeal order (26 February 2024, German language version) denying provisional measures against NanoString. The CoA held that the patent was more likely than not invalid, laid down principles on patent claim interpretation under Art. 69 EPC, burden of proof in provisional measure proceedings, and formal requirements under R. 206 RoP. |
| 2024-03-11 | UPC_CoA_335/2023 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | PI denied | German-language rectification order (11 March 2024) correcting a slip in Headnote 2 of the CoA's 26 February 2024 provisional measures order, with corrected formulation of the patent claim interpretation principles under Art. 69 EPC. |
| 2024-02-22 | UPC_APP_7580/2024 | Court of Appeal | Application for an Order for expedition of an appeal (RoP225(e)) | motionName.appeal_decision | Dismissed | The UPC Court of Appeal dismissed Netgear's request to expedite the appeal and shorten the respondent's time period for filing a statement of response, finding the request too unspecified and insufficiently substantiated given the interests of Huawei and principles of due process in proceedings challenging a separation order. |
| 2024-02-22 | UPC_APP_7580/2024 | Court of Appeal | Application for an Order for expedition of an appeal (RoP225(e)) | motionName.appeal_decision | Dismissed | Order of the Court of Appeal (Panel 2) rejecting Netgear's application under R. 225(e) / R. 9.3(b) RoP to accelerate the appeal proceedings (against an order bifurcating the case under R. 302.1 RoP in Huawei v Netgear concerning EP 3 678 321). The request was filed on the last day of the time limits for the appeal response, and the court refused to shorten the respondent's (Huawei's) deadline to reply, weighing Huawei's interest in a fair hearing against the risk that the first-instance defence would need to be filed before the appeal outcome. |
| 2024-02-08 | UPC_CoA_404/2023 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal (Second Panel) ruled that a member of the public who requests access to the register under R. 262.1(b) RoP must be represented before the UPC, as such a person is in an adversarial situation that requires representation. The unrepresented respondent's Statement of Response was disregarded, and the respondent was given time to remedy the lack of representation. |
| 2024-01-11 | UPC_CoA_486/2023 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 333 | Procedural | Procedural only | Court of Appeal standing judge (11 January 2024) allowed Netgear's request for discretionary review, permitting Netgear to appeal the CFI judge-rapporteur's order of 11 December 2023, holding that the JR could not himself decide on the admissibility of a R. 333 review application of his own decision. The case was referred to the President of the CoA for assignment to a panel. |
| 2024-01-11 | UPC_CoA_486/2023 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 333 | Procedural | Procedural only | German-language version of the same CoA standing judge order of 11 January 2024 granting Netgear's request for discretionary review and permitting appeal of the JR's 11 December 2023 order. |
| 2024-01-10 | UPC_CoA_404/2023 | Court of Appeal | Application RoP262.1 (b) | Procedural | Dismissed | Order of the Court of Appeal dated 10 January 2024 refusing two applications to intervene in the appeal by Ocado against the public register access order. Mathys & Squire LLP and Bristows (Ireland) LLP applied to intervene, arguing they had parallel pending R. 262 applications before the Central Division that raised the same legal issues. The CoA rejected both applications as inadmissible for lack of legal interest in the result of the appeal: a party applicant whose separate R. 262 application is stayed pending the appeal's outcome does not have a sufficient legal interest under the UPC intervention rules, as the outcome of the appeal would not directly and necessarily affect their own applications. |
| 2023-12-20 | UPC_APP_594342/2023 | Court of Appeal | Application for an Order for expedition of an appeal (RoP225(e)) | motionName.appeal_decision | Dismissed | German-language Court of Appeal order (Second Panel) rejecting OPPO's request for shortening of the time period for the Statement of Response (R. 9.3(b) RoP) in the appeal concerning the language of proceedings for EP 3 096 315. Same outcome and reasoning as App_594327/2023 and App_594339/2023. Proceedings closed. |
| 2023-12-20 | UPC_APP_594342/2023 | Court of Appeal | Application for an Order for expedition of an appeal (RoP225(e)) | motionName.appeal_decision | Dismissed | English translation of the Court of Appeal order (Second Panel) rejecting OPPO's request for shortening of the time period for the Statement of Response in the appeal concerning the language of proceedings for EP 3 096 315. Same reasoning as App_594327/2023. Proceedings closed. |
| 2023-12-19 | UPC_APP_594339/2023 | Court of Appeal | Application for an Order for expedition of an appeal (RoP225(e)) | motionName.appeal_decision | Dismissed | The Court of Appeal (Second Panel) rejected OPPO's request for shortening of the time period for lodging a Statement of Response in the appeal concerning the language of proceedings (EP 2 568 724, misidentified in the filing as EP 3 096 315). Same outcome and reasoning as App_594327/2023: request filed on last available day, insufficient time for respondent, contrary to principles of proportionality and fairness. Proceedings closed. This is the German-language version of the order. |
| 2023-12-19 | UPC_APP_594339/2023 | Court of Appeal | Application for an Order for expedition of an appeal (RoP225(e)) | motionName.appeal_decision | Dismissed | English translation of the Court of Appeal order (Second Panel) rejecting OPPO's request for shortening of the time period for the Statement of Response (R. 9.3(b) RoP) in the appeal concerning the language of proceedings for EP 2 568 724. Same reasoning as App_594327/2023. Proceedings closed. |
| 2023-12-18 | UPC_APP_594327/2023 | Court of Appeal | Application for an Order for expedition of an appeal (RoP225(e)) | motionName.appeal_decision | Dismissed | The Court of Appeal (Second Panel) rejected OPPO's request for shortening of the time period for the respondent's Statement of Response in the appeal concerning the language of proceedings (EP 2 207 270). The CoA found that the request was filed on the last day of the available period, leaving insufficient time for the respondent, and that granting the request would be contrary to principles of proportionality, fairness and equity. The proceedings were closed. |
| 2023-12-18 | UPC_CoA_472/2023 | Court of Appeal | Application for an Order for expedition of an appeal (RoP225(e)) | — | Dismissed | The Court of Appeal rejected OPPO/OROPE's application to shorten the time limit for filing the respondent's statement of response in an appeal concerning the language of proceedings (Rule 323 RoP), pursuant to Rule 225(e) and 9.3(b) RoP. The application was filed on the last day of the time limit and did not adequately consider the respondent's (Panasonic's) right to adequate preparation time. |
| 2023-12-11 | UPC_CoA_404/2023 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | Case management order from the Court of Appeal dated 11 December 2023 in Ocado v. Autostore appeal concerning access to the statement of claim by a third party (GDPR-redacted respondent). The order corrects a CMS error incorrectly designating the Autostore companies as respondents (the respondent is the individual third party applicant). The CoA notes Ocado's submission that four defendants were never served and intends to address this later. The order invites parties to comment on whether R. 8 RoP (representation requirement) applies to the individual respondent who represents himself. |
| 2023-11-06 | UPC_APP_584588/2023 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 223 | Procedural | Procedural only | Court of Appeal standing judge granted suspensive effect (6 November 2023) to Ocado Innovation Limited's appeal against a Nordic-Baltic Regional Division order granting a third party access to Ocado's statement of claim. The suspensive effect prevents access to the document pending adjudication of the appeal on the merits. |
| 2023-10-13 | UPC_CoA_320/2023 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal (German language version) addressed the date of service of the Statement of claim and term extensions. The Court held: (1) A Statement of claim can be validly served even if annexes are not simultaneously uploaded, provided the statement alone enables the defendant to assert its rights. (2) If a claimant fails to upload annexes simultaneously with the Statement of claim contrary to R.13.2 RoP, this in itself constitutes sufficient grounds for a defendant's request for term extension (without regard to the nature or content of the annexes). (3) The extension must compensate for the period during which the annexes were unavailable. This is a duplicate/German language version of the same decision published in English (see final-order-appeal-572929-eng_0.pdf). |
| 2023-10-13 | UPC_CoA_320/2023 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal (English language version) ruled on the date of service of the Statement of claim and term extensions for preliminary objection and statement of defence. Key holdings: (1) A Statement of claim can be validly served even without annexes, provided it enables the defendant to assert rights before the UPC courts. (2) Non-simultaneous upload of annexes contrary to R.13.2 RoP is itself sufficient for a defendant to request term extension, regardless of the content of the annexes. (3) The extension should equal the period during which annexes were unavailable after service. This is the English version of the same decision (see final-order-appeal-572929-002.pdf for German version). |