| 2024-10-20 | UPC_CFI_471/2023 | Mannheim LD | Generic application | — | Procedural only | Procedural order on a request for disclosure of information about the configuration and coding scheme of video files (Rule 191 RoP). The court declined to order disclosure at this stage due to the uncertain validity of the patent, finding it would be disproportionate to require defendants to provide the requested technical information before validity is established. |
| 2024-10-18 | UPC_APP_44953/2024 | Munich LD | Generic application | Costs | Costs only | Decision of Munich Local Division in SES-imagotag SA v Hanshow Technology / Hanshow Germany / Hanshow France / Hanshow Netherlands on Hanshow's application for costs of the appeal proceedings before the Court of Appeal (APL_8/2024, UPC_CoA_1/2024). The court dismissed the costs application as inadmissible because it was not filed within the time limit. The court also rejected Hanshow's application for reinstatement (Wiedereinsetzung) as it had not been filed at the competent court (first instance) and the reinstatement fee had not been paid. |
| 2024-10-17 | ACT_551180/2023 | Munich CD | Revocation Action | Revocation merits | Revoked | The Munich Section of the Central Division revoked European Patent EP 2 794 928 B1 (owned by President and Fellows of Harvard College) in its entirety, with effect in France, Germany, and the Netherlands, in a revocation action brought by NanoString Technologies Europe Limited. The Court found that the main claim lacked novelty over the prior art disclosure 'Göransson', and that all eight auxiliary requests (AR1–8) also lacked inventive step over Göransson. Harvard's auxiliary requests to amend the patent were all rejected. Harvard as the unsuccessful party must bear NanoString's legal costs. |
| 2024-10-15 | CoA_PC 01/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | — | Dismissed | Court of Appeal declared Photon Wave's appeal inadmissible. The CoA held that leave to appeal under R.220.2 RoP (other than together with an appeal against the final decision) must be expressly granted by the Court of First Instance and cannot be presumed. As no express leave to appeal was granted by the Paris Local Division, the appeal was inadmissible. |
| 2024-10-15 | CoA_PC 01/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | — | Dismissed | Court of Appeal declared Photon Wave's appeal inadmissible. The Court held that leave to appeal under R. 220.2 RoP must be expressly granted by the Court of First Instance and cannot be presumed. Since the Paris Local Division had not expressly granted leave to appeal the procedural order of 24 July 2024, the appeal was inadmissible. |
| 2024-10-15 | UPC_CoA_570/2024 | Court of Appeal | Request for a discretionary review (RoP 220.3) | — | Dismissed | Court of Appeal dismissed Microsoft's request for discretionary review (Rule 220.3 RoP) of the Paris Central Division's order refusing to declare Suinno's infringement action manifestly inadmissible under Rule 361 RoP on account of alleged lack of independence of Suinno's representative. The CoA held that the manifestly inadmissible threshold under Rule 361 RoP requires clear-cut cases without in-depth analysis, and that the CFI's refusal to find manifest inadmissibility was not an appropriate case for discretionary review. |
| 2024-10-14 | UPC_APP_46766/2024 | Paris CD | Generic application | Costs | Procedural only | The Paris Central Division ordered Ballinno to provide security for Kinexon's legal costs in the revocation action concerning EP 1 944 067 B1 (sports tracking), refusing an oral hearing on the security issue and scheduling the main oral hearing for 21 March 2025. |
| 2024-10-14 | UPC_APP_52022/2024 | The Hague LD | Generic application | Evidence | Procedural only | The Hague Local Division (judge-rapporteur Brinkman) partially granted Winnow Solutions Limited's request under R. 190 RoP to order Orbisk B.V. to produce evidence (specific documents relating to its food waste monitoring product 'Orbi') in infringement proceedings concerning EP 3 198 245. The court found a prima facie case of infringement and that Winnow had presented reasonably available evidence; however, the request was too broad and was limited. Arguments on non-infringement and invalidity were reserved for full panel assessment. Orbisk's requests for a stay of the R.190 decision and for access restrictions were addressed in the order. |
| 2024-10-14 | UPC_CFI_327/2024 | The Hague LD | Procedural Order | — | Procedural only | Order from The Hague Local Division dated 14 October 2024 partially granting Winnow Solutions Limited's request to produce evidence under R. 190 RoP in its infringement action against Orbisk B.V. The court found a prima facie case of infringement of EP 3 198 245 B1 and ordered Orbisk to produce certain documents, but limited the scope as the original request was too broad. Non-infringement and invalidity arguments were reserved for full panel evaluation. Orbisk was granted a period to file a R. 262A motion and access to the produced documents was restricted to Winnow's legal representatives. |
| 2024-10-14 | UPC_APP_33486/2024 | Paris CD | Application RoP262.1 (b) | Procedural | Procedural only | The Paris Central Division ruled on applications for public access to pleadings and evidence filed by SWAT Medical AB (KIPA AB) in relation to revocation and counterclaim proceedings between Meril entities and Edwards Lifesciences concerning EP 3 646 825. |
| 2024-10-11 | ORD_56109/2024 | Munich LD | Generic Order | Costs | Withdrawn | The Munich Local Division accepted the withdrawal of MSG Maschinenbau GmbH's infringement action and declared the revocation counterclaim moot (gegenstandslos), following the parties' agreement. Each party bears its own costs; partial court fee refunds were ordered for both sides. |
| 2024-10-11 | UPC_APP_51661/2024 | Hamburg LD | Application Rop 333 | Procedural | Procedural only | The Hamburg Local Division panel reviewed a confidentiality order restricting access to a statement of defence and witness statement, addressing whether two US attorneys employed by the claimant should be admitted to the confidentiality club. |
| 2024-10-11 | UPC_APP_54390/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | The Düsseldorf Local Division dismissed CAN Srl/Airxcel Europe's request for an extension of the preliminary objection and statement of defence deadlines, finding no exceptional circumstances justifying an extension under Rule 9.3(a) RoP. |
| 2024-10-11 | UPC_APP_53731/2024 | Paris LD | Amend Document | Procedural | Procedural only | Paris Local Division dismissed Abbott's application under Rule 263 RoP for leave to amend its defence/case to include the newly released LibreLinkUp app version 4.12.0, in DexCom's infringement action concerning EP 3 831 282. While the first condition (amendment could not have been made earlier) was met, the second condition was not: granting the amendment would unreasonably hinder DexCom's preparation for the oral hearing scheduled in 10 days. Abbott retains the option to bring a separate action for non-infringement regarding the new product. |
| 2024-10-11 | UPC_CFI_193/2024 | Munich LD | Generic Order | — | Infringed | Default judgment granted against ARCORA International GmbH for infringement of EP 3 760 094 B1 (floor cleaning device patent). ARCORA was ordered to cease and desist from offering and placing the infringing product on the market, and to provide accounting information. Partial withdrawal of claims permitted. ARCORA bears 90% of costs, i-mop 10%. |
| 2024-10-11 | UPC_APP_3393/2024 | Munich LD | Procedural Order | Procedural | Costs only | The Munich Local Division issued a costs assessment order following provisional measures proceedings, determining recoverable legal costs for Hanshow's four defendant entities, finding a reasonable time expenditure of up to 150 hours per attorney and 40 hours per patent attorney, resulting in total assessed costs of approximately EUR 154,400. |
| 2024-10-10 | ACT_579244/2023 | Dusseldorf LD | Infringement Action | Infringement merits | Infringed | The Local Division Düsseldorf found that expert klein GmbH and expert e-Commerce GmbH directly infringed EP 3 926 698 B1 (relating to lighting technology) owned by Seoul Viosys, dismissed the revocation counterclaim filed only by one defendant, and ordered the defendants to cease, render accounts, and pay damages, without requiring security for enforcement. |
| 2024-10-10 | UPC_APP_55249/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Generic application | Costs | Procedural only | Order of the Düsseldorf Local Division refusing Aarke AB's request to adjourn the oral hearing in the infringement action by SodaStream Industries Ltd. concerning EP 1 793 917. The defendant sought adjournment pending an outstanding Court of Appeal order on its dismissed security for costs application. The Court found no convincing reasons to adjourn. |
| 2024-10-10 | UPC_CFI_483/2023 | Dusseldorf LD | Infringement Action | — | Revoked | Düsseldorf Local Division revoked EP 3 223 320 for Germany, France, Italy, and the Netherlands based on the counterclaim for revocation, finding the patent was invalid due to added matter (Art. 138(1)(c) EPC / Art. 123(2) EPC). The infringement action was dismissed as a result. Seoul Viosys (claimant) was ordered to bear all costs. |
| 2024-10-09 | UPC_APP_52471/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal ruled on Dyson's application to exclude certain grounds of appeal raised by SharkNinja that were not included in the statement of grounds of appeal, and on SharkNinja's application to admit new evidence. The order addressed admissibility of late-raised invalidity attack combinations (lack of inventive step based on various prior art combinations) and admission of new evidence under Rule 222.2 RoP. |
| 2024-10-09 | UPC_APP_52471/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal (Second Panel) ruled on Dyson's request to disregard certain SharkNinja grounds of appeal and on SharkNinja's submission of new evidence (FBD 27) in the appeal against the Munich Local Division's order concerning EP 2 043 492. The court found that SharkNinja had sufficiently incorporated its first-instance submissions into the appeal grounds and rejected Dyson's request to disregard grounds (a)-(d). Ground (e) regarding JP 573 was not separately addressed given the court's assessment. New evidence FBD 27 (US proceedings submission) was found to be new and SharkNinja's justification for its late submission was accepted. |
| 2024-10-09 | UPC_CoA_586/2024 | Court of Appeal | Request for a discretionary review (RoP 220.3) | — | Dismissed | Court of Appeal (Standing Judge) dismissed Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy's request for discretionary review (Rule 220.3 RoP) of the Paris Central Division's order for security for costs as inadmissible. The court held that Suinno had not first requested the Court of First Instance to grant leave to appeal, which is a prerequisite before seeking discretionary review under Rule 220.3 RoP. The fact that the CFI order failed to indicate the right to appeal under Rule 158.3 RoP did not change this: the omission could not be read as an implied grant of leave. |
| 2024-10-09 | UPC_CoA_584/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic Order | — | Dismissed | The Court of Appeal rejected EOFlow's request for expedition of the appeal (in an appeal concerning refusal to join two provisional measures cases against different defendants). The court found that EOFlow had failed to act with sufficient urgency and by filing its appeal and expedition request at an unnecessarily late stage had insufficiently taken into account the interests of Insulet, making it impossible to expedite the appeal without prejudicing Insulet's response time. |
| 2024-10-08 | UPC_APP_52773/2024 | Paris CD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | Paris Central Division (judge-rapporteur) denied Edwards Lifesciences Corporation's application for a time extension to file its rejoinder in proceedings UPC_CFI_189/2024, holding that the principle of procedural efficiency must yield to the fair trial principle only where the extension would not disadvantage the party who had already complied with the shorter ordinary deadline. Since the respondents (Meril) had already met the ordinary deadline, granting Edwards an extension would be unfair. |
| 2024-10-07 | ORD_55063/2024 | Nordic-Baltic RD | Generic Order | Procedural | Procedural only | Nordic-Baltic Regional Division (judge-rapporteur Kai Härmand) preliminary/case management order in Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.'s infringement action against Dexcom Inc. and Dexcom International Limited concerning EP 3 977 921 (a continuous glucose monitoring patent). The order addresses multiple pending applications including Abbott's R. 190 application to communicate information (partially dismissed following Paris LD precedent), Abbott's R. 191 application (found admissible but not justified), Abbott's application to change the statement of claim, Dexcom's request for security for legal costs, and sets procedural deadlines and oral hearing preparation steps. |
| 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. |
| 2024-10-02 | ORD_46842/2024 | Munich LD | Generic Order | Procedural | Procedural only | The Munich Local Division admitted a patent pool administrator (Access Advance LLC) as an intervener on the side of the claimant (NEC) in infringement proceedings against TCL entities, granting it limited access to the case file subject to existing confidentiality restrictions. |
| 2024-10-02 | ORD_54526/2024 | Munich LD | Generic Order | Procedural | Procedural only | The Munich Local Division ruled on an application to admit a third-party intervention by a patent pool administrator, holding that the administrator has a legal interest in the outcome of proceedings and may intervene. The order also addressed the intervener's access to confidential information in the proceedings. |
| 2024-10-02 | ORD_46985/2024 | Munich LD | Generic Order | motionName.substantive_other | Procedural only | Munich Local Division order admitting the intervention of Access Advance LLC (patent pool administrator) in NEC Corporation v. TCL Deutschland GmbH et al. (EP 2 863 637). The court held: (1) a patent pool administrator has a legal interest in proceedings (R. 313 RoP); (2) admission is not precluded by Art. 101 TFEU competition law concerns; (3) the intervener is treated as a party (R. 315(4) RoP) and granted file access, subject to the existing confidentiality restrictions. A detailed confidentiality order was issued specifying which FRAND negotiation information remains restricted, with the intervener's representatives granted access to certain but not all restricted categories. |
| 2024-10-02 | UPC_CFI_54/2024 | Munich LD | Generic application | — | Procedural only | Procedural order on Samsung Electronics entities' application for security for costs (Rule 158 RoP) against Claimant Headwater Research LLC, a US-based patent assertion entity. Applying the CoA standard that the claimant's financial position must give rise to legitimate and real concern about recoverability of a potential cost order, the court assessed whether EUR 200,000 security was appropriate. |
| 2024-10-02 | UPC_CFI_498/2023 | Munich LD | Generic Order | — | Procedural only | Procedural order in NEC v TCL infringement action, granting an application for intervention by a third party. The court set out procedural arrangements for the intervener to participate via the claimant's representatives in the case management system. |
| 2024-10-01 | UPC_APP_40442/2024 | Milan LD | Procedural Order | Procedural | Procedural only | The Milan Local Division denied EOFLOW CO LTD's application to intervene as a third party in Insulet's provisional measures proceedings against Menarini under R.313 RoP, holding that efficiency of the proceedings and other balancing considerations weighed against admitting the intervention. |
| 2024-10-01 | ORD_52068/2024 | Milan CD | Generic Order | Procedural | Procedural only | Milan Central Division procedural order in provisional measures proceedings by Insulet Corporation against EOFlow Co. Ltd. concerning EP 4 201 327 (insulin pump). A. Menarini Diagnostics (exclusive distributor of EOFlow) applied to intervene. The Court rejected the intervention request, reasoning that interim injunction proceedings should not be burdened with interventions that could slow down the accelerated procedure, and Menarini could pursue its interests in subsequent merits proceedings. |
| 2024-10-01 | UPC_CFI_400/2024 | Milan LD | Application for provisional measures | Procedural | Procedural only | The Milan Local Division denied EOFLOW CO LTD's application to intervene as a third party in Insulet's provisional measures proceedings against Menarini under R.313 RoP, holding that efficiency of the proceedings and other balancing considerations weighed against admitting the intervention. |
| 2024-09-30 | APL_52763/2024 | Court of Appeal | Request for a discretionary review (RoP 220.3) | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal (single judge) denied Xiaomi's request for discretionary review of three first-instance orders concerning the extension of a time limit under R.29(d) RoP for filing a rejoinder in three parallel infringement proceedings brought by Panasonic before the Local Division Mannheim. |
| 2024-09-30 | UPC_APP_42517/2024 | Paris CD | Generic application | Costs | Procedural only | Order of the Paris Central Division (full panel) on Microsoft Corporation's application for security for legal costs against Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy (a Finnish NPE). The court addressed the standard for ordering security: the financial position of the respondent must give rise to a legitimate and real concern that a costs order may not be recoverable or enforceable. The court found Microsoft established the highest possible insolvency risk, as Suinno lacked substantial assets. The court ordered Suinno to provide adequate security for costs in the infringement action (UPC_CFI_164/2024). The respondent's reciprocal request was rejected. |
| 2024-09-27 | UPC_APP_53213/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal issued a separate notification to NST (Network System Technologies LLC) pursuant to R.158.4 RoP, informing it that failure to provide the ordered security for costs within three weeks may result in a decision by default in the main infringement proceedings brought by NST against Volkswagen AG. |
| 2024-09-27 | UPC_APP_53570/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Generic application | Procedural | Dismissed | Düsseldorf Local Division (27 September 2024) refused Mammut's application for leave to file additional submissions in response to the CoA's order of 25 September 2024, finding that the CoA order did not provide grounds for allowing further submissions in the main proceedings. |
| 2024-09-27 | UPC_CoA_217/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | — | Procedural only | Order of the Court of Appeal dated 27 September 2024 on Audi AG's request for rectification under R. 353 RoP of a prior CoA order (dated 17 September 2024) requiring Network System Technologies LLC (NST) to provide security for costs of EUR 100,000, EUR 100,000 and EUR 300,000 in three appeal proceedings. Audi requested that the rectified order also include the notification under R. 158.4 RoP that default judgment may follow if NST fails to provide the security within three weeks. The CoA granted this request, finding the omission of the R. 158.4 notification was an obvious slip, as that notification is mandatory. |
| 2024-09-26 | ORD_53245/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Generic Order | Procedural | Settled | The Düsseldorf Local Division accepted the withdrawal of Dolby International AB's infringement action against Optoma entities following an out-of-court settlement. Each party bears its own costs; Dolby received a 60% refund of its court fees. |
| 2024-09-26 | UPC_APP_31889/2024 | Munich LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | The Munich Local Division judge-rapporteur referred to the full panel a request by Xiaomi (defendants) to stay the infringement proceedings pending a UK High Court FRAND determination. The judge-rapporteur determined that the stay application raised issues of principle best decided by the full panel, and that the matter should be addressed at or after the scheduled oral hearings in late 2024 / early 2025. |
| 2024-09-25 | UPC_APP_48805/2024 | Munich LD | Preliminary objection | motionName.jurisdictional | Dismissed | The Munich Local Division dismissed the request by Heraeus Precious Metals GmbH (co-claimant 2) to have Vibrantz's counterclaim for revocation rejected as obviously unfounded or inadmissible, holding that the counterclaim was properly directed against the registered patent proprietor. |
| 2024-09-25 | UPC_APP_52697/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | The Düsseldorf Local Division issued a procedural order in the Innovative Sonic v Lenovo/Motorola infringement action concerning EP2765731, addressing case management matters in an action involving multiple defendants across several European countries. |
| 2024-09-25 | APL_21143/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | PI granted | The Court of Appeal upheld a first-instance preliminary injunction (including a seizure order) obtained by Ortovox against Mammut for alleged infringement of a patent relating to avalanche rescue devices, affirming the findings on urgency, infringement likelihood, and balance of interests. The appeal by Mammut was dismissed and provisional cost reimbursement was ordered in favour of Ortovox. |
| 2024-09-25 | ORD_53404/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Generic Order | Procedural | Procedural only | The Düsseldorf Local Division issued a procedural order in the Magna v. Valeo proceedings concerning EP 3 320 602, addressing the rules on evidence applicable in provisional measures (preliminary injunction) proceedings under R. 9 RoP and R. 210.2 RoP, in preparation for the oral hearing scheduled for 8 October 2024. |
| 2024-09-25 | UPC_APP_33728/2024 | Munich LD | Amend Document | Procedural | Procedural only | Munich Local Division procedural order (judge-rapporteur Dr. Zigann) in an infringement action by Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG and Heraeus Precious Metals GmbH & Co. KG against Vibrantz GmbH concerning EP 3 215 288 (sintering/bonding material technology). The order ruled on Heraeus's application under R. 263 VerfO to amend several claim requests, granting some amendments (including unconditional restriction of claims as to Germany to reflect a German Federal Patent Court judgment upholding a use claim) and addressing others on their merits. No costs decision at this stage. |
| 2024-09-25 | UPC_CoA_182/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | — | Procedural only | Rectification order of the Court of Appeal correcting an obvious clerical error in the operative part of the appeal order of 25 September 2024 (Mammut v Ortovox). In item 3 of the original order, 'Antragsgegnerin' was incorrectly used instead of 'Ortovox'; the corrected wording orders Mammut to reimburse Ortovox further provisional costs of EUR 19,858.40. |
| 2024-09-25 | UPC_CoA_182/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | — | PI granted | The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal by Mammut Sports Group and confirmed the provisional measures order issued by the Court of First Instance (Local Division) in favour of Ortovox. The Court rejected Mammut's attempts to introduce new submissions and its counterclaim for revocation in the appeal proceedings. The Court confirmed the provisional measures (seizure order and publication), the threatened penalty payment, and the security ordered. The Court additionally ordered Mammut to reimburse Ortovox's further interim costs of EUR 19,858.40 and to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings. Key legal principles established include: discretion to consider submissions rightly rejected at first instance; urgency requirements under R.211.4 RoP; irreparable harm not being a necessary condition for provisional measures; and applicability of R.263 RoP to provisional measures proceedings. |
| 2024-09-24 | APL_32345/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal upheld the Düsseldorf Local Division's order refusing to require Panasonic to produce licence agreements for the FRAND defence raised by OPPO/OROPE, ruling that the request did not yet satisfy the requirements of necessity, relevance, and proportionality at the current stage of proceedings. |