| 2025-04-04 | UPC_CFI_501/2023 | Munich LD | Infringement Action | — | Infringed | Infringement action by Edwards Lifesciences Corporation against Meril GmbH, Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd, and Meril Italy S.r.l. concerning transcatheter heart valve (Myval THV) and EP 3 669 828. The court found infringement, dismissed the invalidity counterclaim (patent valid), and ordered: injunction, recall, seizure and destruction, disclosure of sales data, provisional damages of EUR 663,000, publication of decision in five media outlets. Decision immediately and directly enforceable from date of service. Key headnotes: jurisdiction for multiple defendants with commercial relationship; problem-solution approach for inventive step; cease-and-desist without penalty clause insufficient. |
| 2025-04-03 | UPC_APP_8203/2025 | Mannheim LD | Preliminary objection | motionName.jurisdictional | Procedural only | Order by Mannheim Local Division (UPC_CFI_819/2024, 3 April 2025) dismissing preliminary objections by Hisense, TCL and LG defendants in Corning's infringement action for EP 3 296 274 (glass sheets in LCD TVs). Defendants argued as distributors they had no knowledge of the manufacturing process and that three separate infringement forms could not be tried in one action (Art. 33(1)(a) UPCA). The court rejected these arguments. |
| 2025-04-03 | UPC_APP_13099/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 265 | Procedural | Withdrawn | Court of Appeal (standing judge Blok) order permitting EOFlow Co., Ltd.'s withdrawal of its application for leave to appeal against a Milan Central Division cost order and declaring the leave-to-appeal proceedings closed. EOFlow had sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of its cost application following Insulet's failed provisional measures request. Both parties agreed to the withdrawal and neither sought a costs decision for the leave-to-appeal proceedings. |
| 2025-04-03 | UPC_APP_11372/2025 | Munich LD | Procedural Order | Procedural | Procedural only | Munich Local Division order on BioNTech/Pfizer's application under R. 190 RoP for production of detailed materials, methods and raw data underlying an expert report (Exhibit VB 6) submitted by Promosome LLC (claimant) in mRNA patent infringement proceedings. The order addresses what supporting data must be disclosed when an expert report is filed as evidence. |
| 2025-04-03 | UPC_CFI_846/2024 | Munich LD | Procedural Order | — | Procedural only | Procedural order on defendants' application (Rule 190 RoP) for production of detailed experimental materials and raw data underlying an expert report submitted by the claimant. The court ordered disclosure of additional supporting data and methodology to enable the defendants to assess the accuracy and reliability of the claimant's test results. |
| 2025-04-02 | UPC_APP_13067/2025 | Munich LD | Preliminary objection | motionName.jurisdictional | Procedural only | The Munich Local Division rejected Ascendis Pharma's preliminary objection to jurisdiction in the infringement action brought by BioMarin Pharmaceutical concerning EP 3 175 863 (C-Type Natriuretic Peptide variants for achondroplasia treatment). The court found that the opt-out withdrawal was effective and that sufficient acts of infringement were alleged in Germany. |
| 2025-04-02 | UPC_APP_54918/2024 | Hamburg LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | The Hamburg Local Division issued a procedural order on a security for costs application (R. 158 RoP) by Chint/Astronergy defendants in solar panel infringement proceedings, addressing whether JingAo Solar's registration in China creates sufficient uncertainty about enforceability of a cost order. |
| 2025-04-02 | ORD_15984/2025 | Mannheim LD | Generic Order | Procedural | Procedural only | The Mannheim Local Division issued a procedural order separating proceedings with respect to the UK national part of EP 3 476 616 in the Fujifilm v. Kodak infringement action, pending the ECJ's ruling in case C-339/22 (BSH Hausgeräte) on jurisdiction under the Brussels Ia Regulation. |
| 2025-04-02 | ACT_579338/2023 | Mannheim LD | Infringement Action | Infringement merits | Infringed | The Mannheim Local Division found that the Kodak defendants infringed EP 3 511 174 B1 owned by FUJIFILM Corporation, ordered an injunction, recall and destruction of infringing products, information disclosure, and an interim award of EUR 300,000 toward legal costs; the defendants' counterclaim for revocation was dismissed. |
| 2025-04-02 | ACT_578818/2023 | Mannheim LD | Infringement Action | Infringement merits | Revoked | The Mannheim Local Division fully revoked European patent EP 3 476 616 in Germany and dismissed the infringement action brought by FUJIFILM against Kodak entities. The application to amend the patent was also dismissed. The court held that the patent was entirely invalid due to lack of novelty/inventive step in the German territory. No injunction was granted. Claimant was ordered to pay EUR 300,000 as interim award on legal costs. The value in dispute was set at EUR 15,000,000. |
| 2025-04-02 | UPC_APP_8316/2025 | Mannheim LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | The Mannheim Local Division issued a procedural order addressing applications by Hisense, TCL, and LG defendants for a stay of proceedings under R. 295(m) RoP, pending the outcome of parallel proceedings against the alleged glass manufacturer (ACT_66849/2024) in the Corning v. Hisense/TCL/LG infringement action concerning EP 3 296 274. The court denied the main request for a stay, while addressing the defendants' argument that proceedings had been artificially split. |
| 2025-04-02 | UPC_APP_61657/2024 | Paris CD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | Order of the Paris Central Division (full panel) declining to issue a decision by default against Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy (claimant in infringement action) following Suinno's failure to provide security for costs within the Court-set deadline. Microsoft Corporation (defendant/counterclaimant) requested a default decision revoking the patent and dismissing the infringement action. The court set out key headnotes: (1) even where the default is evident and unjustified, the court retains discretionary power not to issue a default decision; (2) the court may decline a default where the evidentiary record at time of default does not allow sufficiently confident assessment of the non-defaulting party's claims. The court found the existing record insufficient to confidently assess the merits of Microsoft's revocation counterclaim and declined to revoke the patent by default. |
| 2025-04-02 | UPC_CFI_365/2023 | Mannheim LD | Generic Order | Infringement merits | Infringed | The Mannheim Local Division found that Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, and Kodak Holding GmbH infringed EP 3 511 174 (relating to printing plate technology) owned by FUJIFILM. The defendants were ordered to cease infringement, provide information, destroy infringing products, recall products from commerce, and pay FUJIFILM EUR 300,000 as an interim award on legal costs. The counterclaim for revocation was dismissed. The value of the dispute was set at EUR 15,000,000. |
| 2025-04-02 | UPC_CFI_365/2023 | Mannheim LD | Generic Order | Procedural | Procedural only | Mannheim Local Division separated and ordered independent proceedings for claims and counterclaims relating to the UK national part of European patent EP 3 511 174, following the ECJ's judgment in C-339/22 (BSH Hausgeräte) regarding UPC's jurisdiction under Brussels Ia Regulation. The Court acted after awaiting the ECJ decision which was delivered after the oral hearing. |
| 2025-04-01 | UPC_APP_10764/2025 | The Hague LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | The Hague Local Division ruled on a re-establishment of rights application (R. 320 RoP) filed by the Polish defendant (Szymon Spyra) in an infringement action brought by Amycel LLC concerning EP 1 993 350. Following the grant of provisional measures, service of the statement of claim had been effected by alternative means under R. 275 RoP after personal service attempts failed. The order addressed the defendant's re-establishment request in the context of a deadline for filing a defence. |
| 2025-04-01 | UPC_CoA_80/2025 | Court of Appeal | Decision By Default | — | Dismissed | Decision by default issued by the President of the Court of Appeal rejecting NJOY Netherlands B.V.'s appeal as inadmissible under Rule 229.4 RoP. NJOY had appealed the Paris Central Division's dismissal of its revocation action against EP 2 875 740 held by VMR Products LLC. After being invited to pay the EUR 20,000 appeal fee, NJOY explicitly informed the Court it would not pay because it did not wish to pursue the appeal, and expressly waived its right to be heard. The appeal was accordingly rejected as inadmissible for failure to pay the required fee. |
| 2025-04-01 | UPC_APP_15347/2025 | Munich LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | Procedural order by Munich Local Division in Headwater Research v Samsung (EP 2 391 947) granting Samsung's requests (with Headwater's consent) to extend the deadlines for filing comments on pending applications (application to review case management order, generic application, application to amend pleadings) from 3 April 2025 to a later date. |
| 2025-04-01 | UPC_APP_7563/2025 | Mannheim LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | The Mannheim Local Division dismissed Total Semiconductor LLC's application to file an additional written submission under R. 12.5 and R. 36 RoP in infringement proceedings against Texas Instruments (UPC_CFI_132/2024, EP 2 746 957). The Court held that the two-brief exchange framework under R. 12 RoP is intentional and that the claimant had not demonstrated that the defendants raised genuinely new points in their rejoinder that could not be addressed at the oral hearing. |
| 2025-04-01 | UPC_CFI_614/2024 | Munich LD | Application Rop 265 | — | Settled | The Munich Local Division confirmed withdrawal of Mann+Hummel GmbH's application for provisional measures against Sotras S.R.L. concerning EP 2 762 219 following an out-of-court settlement. The court declared the proceedings closed, agreed that no costs application would be made, and ordered 60% reimbursement of court fees to Mann+Hummel. |
| 2025-04-01 | UPC_CFI_499/2024 | The Hague LD | Infringement Action | Procedural | Procedural only | The Hague Local Division rejected the defendant's application for re-establishment of rights under R. 320 RoP after missing the deadline for filing a statement of defence, finding the representative had not exercised due care given the specific circumstances of the case. |
| 2025-03-31 | UPC_APP_7618/2025 | Munich LD | Amend Document | Procedural | Procedural only | The Munich Local Division granted JingAo Solar Co., Ltd.'s application to amend its patent claims under R. 30 RoP in response to counterclaim for revocation, clarifying that the patentee is not restricted to amending only claims directly targeted by invalidity grounds and that EPO-amended claim versions may be introduced into UPC proceedings. |
| 2025-03-31 | UPC_APP_15086/2025 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal issued a procedural order on ILME's application under Rule 21.2 RoP for permission to add new evidence or arguments in the appeal against the Munich Local Division's order rejecting ILME's jurisdictional objection in the Phoenix Contact v. ILME infringement proceedings. |
| 2025-03-31 | UPC_APP_12551/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 265 | Procedural | Withdrawn | The Court of Appeal allowed Hand Held Products to withdraw its application for provisional measures (pending appeal) after Scandit consented, terminated the appeal proceedings accordingly, and ordered each party to bear its own costs as no costs request was made by either side. |
| 2025-03-31 | UPC_CFI_412/2023 | Paris CD | Generic Order | — | Procedural only | Paris Central Division rejected BMW's application to rectify an order of 9 January 2025 to add a costs provision relating to an application to set aside a default judgment. The court held that the failure to address costs in the operative part could not be corrected under Rule 353 RoP (rectification of obvious slips) because costs for the set-aside application are not a separate decision on the merits but ancillary to the main default proceedings, and any costs claim must be pursued in the separate costs determination procedure. |
| 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. |
| 2025-03-27 | ORD_15005/2025 | Mannheim LD | Generic Order | Evidence | Procedural only | The Mannheim Local Division issued a procedural order addressing the admissibility of conditional applications for information transfer from third parties under Rule 191 RoP, finding that such conditional requests are permissible as internal procedural conditions in the infringement action of DISH Technologies v. AYLO group. |
| 2025-03-26 | ACT_14438/2025 | Dusseldorf LD | Application for an Order for inspection pursuant to RoP199 | Evidence | Procedural only | The Düsseldorf Local Division granted an ex-parte order for inspection and evidence preservation under R.199 RoP at trade fair stands of STEROS GPA INNOVATIVE, allowing representatives of OTEC to be present, concerning patent EP 2 983 864 B1 directed to a surface treatment process. |
| 2025-03-26 | APL_31428/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | Costs only | The Court of Appeal issued an order on costs distribution after a patent revocation action became moot because the patent holder surrendered the patent; the Court established that an exception to the loser-pays rule applies where the patent owner surrendered immediately at the outset of proceedings without prior provocation. |
| 2025-03-26 | UPC_APP_5154/2025 | Mannheim LD | Application RoP262.1 (b) | Procedural | Procedural only | The Mannheim Local Division issued an order on a third-party law firm's (AMPERSAND) application for access to case files under Rule 262.1 RoP in the Panasonic v. OPPO infringement proceedings, addressing the scope of public access to submissions and evidence. |
| 2025-03-26 | UPC_CoA_290/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | — | Costs only | The Court of Appeal dismissed Stäubli's appeal against the Paris Central Division's cost order in a revocation action in which the patent holders surrendered their patent after proceedings commenced. The Court upheld an equitable exception to the general rule (Art. 69(1) UPCA) that the unsuccessful party bears costs: where a claimant files a revocation action without the patent holder giving cause, and the patent holder surrenders the patent immediately at the outset and concurrently files a revocation request with the EPO under Art. 105a EPC, the claimant may bear the costs. The Court applied equity because the patent holders had announced timely surrender and completed formalities only 8 days late without causing extra costs. |
| 2025-03-25 | UPC_APP_14382/2025 | Dusseldorf LD | Application Rop 365 | Procedural | Settled | The Düsseldorf Local Division confirmed a settlement between Nichia Corporation and Endrich Bauelemente Vertriebs GmbH in an infringement action concerning EP 2 323 178, and ordered reimbursement of 60% of court fees to the claimant as the settlement was reached during the written procedure. |
| 2025-03-24 | UPC_CFI_814/2024 | Paris LD | Request to review an order ex-parte | motionName.ex_parte | Procedural only | The Paris Local Division rejected VALINEA ENERGIE's applications to both revoke and revise the ex-parte evidence preservation order (saisie) issued on 23 December 2024. The Court upheld the original saisie order, finding adequate justification for the urgency and effectiveness of the measures. VALINEA's request to increase the security deposit from EUR 10,000 to EUR 50,000 was also rejected, as VALINEA failed to demonstrate TIRU's financial vulnerability. |
| 2025-03-24 | UPC_APP_13834/2025 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | Court of Appeal refused Amazon's application for leave to file additional written submissions in the appeal proceedings. The Court confirmed that the written procedure in appeal is limited to the Statement of Grounds of Appeal and the Statement of Response; additional grounds outside the prescribed time limit are inadmissible under R. 233.3 RoP. |
| 2025-03-24 | UPC_APP_13834/2025 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | German-language signed version of the Court of Appeal procedural order (24 March 2025) refusing Amazon's application for additional written submissions in the Nokia v. Amazon appeal proceedings concerning EP 2 661 892. |
| 2025-03-24 | UPC_CFI_813/2024 | Paris LD | Request to review an order ex-parte | motionName.ex_parte | Procedural only | The Paris Local Division rejected MAGUIN SAS's application to revoke the ex-parte evidence preservation order (saisie) issued on 23 December 2024 in favour of TIRU. The Court found that TIRU had adequately demonstrated the risk of evidence becoming unavailable, that the simultaneous execution of evidence preservation measures at both MAGUIN's and VALINEA's premises was justified by the principle of effectiveness, and that there was no unreasonable delay. The saisie order against MAGUIN was maintained. |
| 2025-03-21 | UPC_APP_10014/2025 | Paris LD | Preliminary objection | motionName.jurisdictional | Dismissed | The Paris Local Division rejected Mul-T-Lock France's preliminary objection challenging UPC jurisdiction over infringement of national (non-unitary) designations of EP 4 153 830 in Spain, the UK and Switzerland, confirming the UPC's competence to hear infringement of all national parts of the patent within UPC Member States. |
| 2025-03-21 | UPC_APP_9038/2025 | Milan CD | Application Rop313 | Procedural | Dismissed | The Milan Central Division dismissed Zentiva K.S. and Zentiva Portugal's application to intervene under Rule 313 RoP in infringement proceedings between Accord Healthcare and Novartis concerning EP 2 501 384. The court held that parallelism between cases or the potential impact of one judgment on another does not establish the legal interest required for intervention, and that the intervening party's requested remedies must be non-contradictory to those of the supported party. |
| 2025-03-21 | UPC_APP_12931/2025 | Dusseldorf LD | Application Rop 265 | Procedural | Settled | The Düsseldorf Local Division permitted the withdrawal of Hand Held Products, Inc.'s infringement action and Scandit AG/Inc.'s counterclaim for revocation in UPC_CFI_76/2024 (EP 2 819 062), following an out-of-court settlement. Both parties had consented to each other's withdrawals. The Court ordered 60% reimbursement of court fees to each side under R. 370.11 RoP. No costs order between the parties was sought or issued. |
| 2025-03-21 | UPC_CFI_582/2024 | Brussels LD | Application for provisional measures | — | PI denied | The Local Division Brussels dismissed Barco's application for provisional measures against Yealink due to lack of urgency. Barco had waited an unreasonably long period before filing, having been aware of the allegedly infringing products since at least May 2023. Barco was ordered to pay Yealink's costs up to EUR 112,000. Dispute value set at EUR 1,000,000. |
| 2025-03-20 | ORD_13670/2025 | Munich LD | Generic Order | Procedural | Procedural only | The Munich Local Division issued a one-paragraph order correcting a typographical error in a scheduling order for the oral hearing in the Adeia Guides v. Walt Disney patent infringement case concerning EP 2 793 430. |
| 2025-03-20 | ORD_9089/2025 | Dusseldorf LD | Generic Order | Procedural | Procedural only | Düsseldorf Local Division early procedural order (R. 37.2 RoP) deciding to proceed jointly with both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation (Art. 33(3)(a) UPCA) in proceedings by Hartmann Packaging A/S (formerly Brødrene Hartmann A/S) against Omni-Pac entities concerning EP 2 755 901. The decision was made before the close of the written procedure for reasons of procedural economy, particularly to ensure timely assignment of a technically qualified judge. |
| 2025-03-19 | UPC_APP_54919/2024 | Munich LD | Generic application | Costs | Procedural only | The Munich Local Division ruled on a security for costs application by Chint/Astronergy defendants in infringement proceedings brought by JingAo Solar, addressing enforceability of potential cost orders against a Chinese claimant and China's compliance with the Hague Service Convention. |
| 2025-03-19 | UPC_APP_11680/2025 | Munich LD | Application Rop 265 | Procedural | Procedural only | Procedural order by Munich Local Division (UPC_CFI_146/2024, 26 March 2025) granting Medac's application to withdraw its third-party access application, ordering deletion of a confidential Sanofi letter that Medac had uploaded without authorisation, imposing the deletion costs on Medac, and issuing a formal warning to Medac's representative for negligent conduct in uploading a privileged document. The court declined to award costs in the R.262(1)(b) application. |
| 2025-03-19 | UPC_CFI_696/2024 | Munich LD | Application For Costs | — | Costs only | Costs assessment decision (Kostenfestsetzungsverfahren) by Munich Local Division in MSG Maschinenbau v EJP Maschinen (EP 3 225 320). The court determined the recoverable costs for both the infringement action and the revocation counterclaim. Costs must be both 'reasonable' (necessary from an ex ante perspective) and 'proportionate' (amount not disproportionate to the dispute value, complexity and prospects). Costs for preparing the costs application itself are recoverable. The costs of a third law firm (Hausanwalt) beyond the two official UPC representatives were not reimbursable due to lack of demonstrated necessity. |
| 2025-03-19 | UPC_CFI_696/2024 | Munich LD | Application For Costs | — | Costs only | Costs assessment decision in proceedings between MSG Maschinenbau GmbH (defendant in the underlying infringement action, now claimant in costs proceedings) and EJP Maschinen GmbH. MSG was ordered to pay EJP a total of EUR 33,224.50 in recoverable costs within 21 days. The remainder of EJP's costs claims were rejected. No interest on costs awarded. |
| 2025-03-18 | UPC_APP_47532/2024 | Munich LD | Preliminary objection | motionName.jurisdictional | Dismissed | The Munich Local Division (Panel 2) dismissed Roku's preliminary objection under R. 19.1(a) RoP, rejecting arguments based on alleged incompatibility of the UPCA with EU primary law and ECHR, and confirming jurisdiction based on plausible allegations of infringement in Germany. |
| 2025-03-18 | UPC_APP_12933/2025 | Munich LD | Application Rop 265 | Procedural | Withdrawn | The Local Division Munich allowed the withdrawal of both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation filed by consent of both parties, terminated the proceedings, and ordered a partial refund of court fees to Scandit. No cost order was made between the parties. |
| 2025-03-18 | UPC_APP_45195/2024 | Munich LD | Preliminary objection | motionName.jurisdictional | Procedural only | The Munich Local Division dismissed Roku's preliminary objection (R. 19 RoP) in the infringement action brought by Dolby International AB, rejecting arguments that (i) the UPCA is incompatible with EU primary law, (ii) Art. 47(2) EU Charter / Art. 6(1) ECHR is violated, and (iii) the Munich Local Division lacks territorial jurisdiction. The court confirmed that incompatibility of the UPCA with EU law is not a valid ground under R. 19.1 RoP, and that for jurisdiction purposes it suffices that the claimant credibly alleges an infringing act in Germany. |
| 2025-03-18 | UPC_APP_47531/2024 | Munich LD | Preliminary objection | motionName.jurisdictional | Procedural only | Procedural order from the Munich Local Division (UPC_CFI_254/2024) dismissing Roku's preliminary objection under R. 19.1(a) RoP against Sun Patent Trust's infringement action concerning EP 2 903 267. The Court ruled that: (1) alleged incompatibility of the UPCA with EU primary law is not a valid ground for preliminary objection; (2) a preliminary objection cannot be based on a violation of Art. 47(2) EU Charter or Art. 6 ECHR; (3) proof of the representative's authority for the opt-out withdrawal need not be included with the statement of claim unless challenged; and (4) for jurisdiction, only a plausible allegation of infringement is required. |
| 2025-03-18 | ACT_59975/2024 | Munich LD | Infringement Action | Procedural | Procedural only | Procedural scheduling order in Adeia Guides Inc. v. The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V. et al. at Munich Local Division (EP 2 793 430). The panel decided to hear both infringement and counterclaim for revocation jointly. Interim conference set for 4 December 2025; oral hearing scheduled for 15 January 2026. Parties summoned. Written procedure to end 10 September 2025. |