2025 UPC August

IPPT20290829, UPC LD Mannheim, Faro v PMT
Proceedings are closed: no need to adjudicate (R. 360 RoP) because of settlement with the first defendant (Article 76(1) UPCA) and cease-and-desist undertaking by the second defendant. Costs of the proceedings between the claimant and the second defendant to be borne by the defendant (Article 69 UPCA). By submitting a cease-and-desist declaration and providing zero information, the defendant has placed itself in the losing position. Equity does not require a different allocation of costs. No formal warning letter was required because the defendant was already aware of the infringement allegations which were explained to its employees.

IPPT20250829, UPC LD The Hague, Cilag v RiVOLUTION
Application for provisional measures dismissed for unreasonable delay (R. 211.4 RoP). Cilag waited almost three months, until 6 February 2025, before sending a letter to Rivolution. Cilag also did not take action immediately [...] in a letter to Rivolution of 26 March 2026 (in reply to Rivolution’s response of 20 February 2025). It then took until the end of April, 29 April 2025. The tender that Applicant claims to give rise to new urgency was already known about a year prior, which means that this fact cannot revive urgency. LD The Hague competent to hear infringement claim (Article 33.1 UPCA). The panel doubts whether the UPCA should be interpreted such that, in case of a unitary patent, all divisions of the court are then also competent to hear the case, irrespective of the internal distribution of competences of the court provided by Art. 33.1 UPCA. This would make Art. 33.1 UPCA effectively meaningless for cases relating to unitary patents. Cilag substantiated in a sufficiently plausible way that the asserted imminent/threatened infringement is also directed to customers in the Netherlands. The LD The Hague therefore is competent to hear the application pursuant to Art. 7(2) BR and Art. 33.1(a) UPCA. Applicant has standing to sue  (Article 47 UPCA). Pursuant to R. 8.4 RoP, the person shown in the Register for unitary patent protection as the proprietor of the patent shall be treated as such. Contrary to what is explicitly mentioned for bundle patents (in R. 8.5 (c) RoP), this is not said to be a rebuttable presumption.

IPPT20250829, UPC LD Dusseldorf, Wonderland v Cybex
Application for leave to amend the claim denied (R. 263 RoP). The fact that the Claimant seeks to claim infringement by equivalence does not constitute an amendment of the case. Extending the equivalence argument to features 1.9 and 1.10 does not alter the nature or scope of the dispute. The equivalence argument remains based on the same patent and is directed against the same products, namely the challenged strollers having swivel locking devices. Other restrictions on raising new arguments – with regard to R. 13 RoP and R. 9.2 RoP – are not subject of the application and will therefore have to be decided at a later date. 

IPPT20250829, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, City Glass v Maars
Patent valid (Article 65 UPCA) but not infringed (Article 25 UPCA, Article 69 EPC). The allegedly infringing products do not meet features 1.4 and 1.6 as interpreted above. […]. It is not necessary to decide on equivalent infringement of feature 1.4 because also feature 1.6 is not present in the Horizon products.

IPPT20290828, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Faro v PMT
No reimbursement of Court fees in case of withdrawal of application for interim measures (R. 265 RoP). (R. 370.9(b)(i) RoP) is not applicable, either directly or analogously, to applications for interim measures. According to its wording, the provision refers only to actions. Furthermore, the procedural stages referred to in R. 370. 9(b) VerfO are not applicable in proceedings concerning applications for interim measures. In particular, oral hearings do not take place in every case. Furthermore, the court fee for applications for interim measures is already significantly reduced compared to that for legal actions. Against this background, no further reductions are provided for or required.

IPPT20290827, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Decathlon v OWIM
Part of Rejoinder to the application to amend the patent which contains a summary of the parties’ arguments regarding the validity/invalidity of the patent-in-suit disregarded. The Rejoinder shall be limited to matters raised in the Reply (R. 9.3 RoP, R. 32.3 RoP) 

IPPT20250826, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Shangrao v LONGi
Proceedings stayed on joint application due to ongoing settlement negotiations (R. 295(d) RoP). The time limit for submitting a Statement of defence (and a Counterclaim for revocation) pursuant to Rule 23 RoP is extended to full five months (R. 296.3 RoP)

IPPT20250826, UPC CFI, LD Paris, Sun Patent Trust v Vivo Mobile
Extension for filing a Preliminary Objection (PO) and lodging the Statement of Defense (SoD) following Order establishing confidentiality club regime by order of 31 July 2025,but strictly limited to three weeks (nearly corresponding to the period between 31 July 2025  to the date of the present order) (R. 19 RoP, R. 23 RoP. R. 262A RoP)

IPPT20250826, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Hologic v Siemens
Uncontested determination of confidential information for confidentiality club regime, including information regarding the design, components and the functioning of the attacked embodiments (R. 262A RoP., Article 58 UPCA)

IPPT20250826, UPC CFI, LD Munich, NEC V TCL
Access to register granted to law firm (R. 262 RoP). The Applicant shall be granted access to the written pleadings and evidence, whereby access shall be restricted to the redacted versions of the written pleadings for reasons of confidentiality and whereby personal data shall be redacted. However, insofar as the Applicant also listed orders of the Court and notifications from the CMS in its request, this is not successful. These are not subject to R. 262.1(b) RoP.

IPPT20250826, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Huawei v MediaTek
Plaintiff ordered to provide € 150.000 security for the costs of the legal dispute and other costs (R. 158.1 RoP). Sufficient likelihood that any decision by the UPC on costs in favour of the second defendant could only be enforced with disproportionate difficulty against company based in the People's Republic of China.

IPPT20250825, UPC CFI, LD Hamburg, MED-EL v Nurotron
A lawyer authorised to represent a party in a proceeding on provisional measures is not automatically authorised to represent the same party in a subsequent infringement action concerning the same patent (Article 48(1) UPCA, R. 8.1 RoP, even if there is a link between the two proceedings (cf. e.g. Article 32.2 UPCA, Rule 213 RoP). Hence, the link between the proceedings in this case is different from the one assessed by LD Mannheim in case UPC CFI 445/2025, where it was held that the representative in the main proceeding (an infringement action) could be served an application that was inextricably linked to that main proceeding, even if the power of attorney was limited in this respect. Since Defendant 1 has its statutory seat, central administration and principal place of business outside the territory of the contracting member states of the UPCA, service shall be done in accordance with Rule 274 RoP. 

IPPT20250825, UPC CoA, Sun Patent v Vivo
Application for suspensive effect appeal of confidentiality club regime rejected (R. 262A RoP, R. 223 RoP). The appeal will not become devoid of purpose as a result of not granting the application for suspensive effect. The information protected under R. 262A RoP will still be confidential as the employees from respondent will still be obliged to maintain confidentiality. In the event appellant succeeds in appeal, the access to the information will be removed.

IPPT20250825, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Qualcomm v NST
Preliminary objection rejected (R. 19 RoP). Lodged within one month of service, because, in the present case, the Statement of claim is deemed to have been served on the Defendants on the tenth day following posting, i.e. between 25 and 30 March 2024, in accordance with Rule 271.6 (b) RoP. Unfounded: the objections to the effectiveness of an opt-out or its withdrawal should be limited. Thus, the Defendant, who asserts the invalidity of a withdrawal of an opt-out in a Preliminary objection pursuant to Rule 19.1(a) RoP, can only object that the formal requirements of Rule 5.3 and 5.7 RoP have not been complied with, that the withdrawal has not been entered in the register or that the requirements of Rule 5.8 RoP are met.  In particular, a mandate, a power of representation or any other authority for a representative acting under Rule 5.3 (b) (i) RoP is not required for an effective opt-out or its withdrawal. Unlike paragraph (ii), Rule 5.3 (b) (i) RoP does not require a mandate or any other substantive legal authority to represent.

IPPT20250822, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Brita v Aquashield
Patent maintained in amended form (Article 65 UPCA). Indirect infringement (Article 26 UPCA); No exhaustion (Article 29 UPCA). As is usually the case, the purpose specified in the claim (Article 69 EPC) defines the protected subject matter in such a way that it must be objectively suitable for interacting with the valve in accordance with features 1a and 1b of claim 1. When plaintiff defends the contested disputed patent only to a limited extent in accordance with the respective sets of claims (Article 65(3) UPCA), there is no need to investigate whether subordinate  claims of the contested patent in the registered version are to be declared partially invalid and, if necessary, upheld in combination with uncontested (sub)claims, since the court must decide in accordance with the parties' submissions (Article 76(1) UPCA). Exhaustion of patent rights in case of use of the product for its intended purpose, to sell it to third parties or to offer it to third parties for one of these purposes (Article 29 UPCA). The assumption of exhaustion fails because the filter cartridge offered and distributed by the plaintiff does not itself have the features of a filter cartridge according to claim 1 as amended in auxiliary request 16. If an embodiment that indirectly infringes the patent can also be used without infringing the patent (Article 26 UPCA) only a limited prohibition is justified, which ensures that, on the one hand, economic trade in the contested object outside the scope of the property right remains unaffected and, on the other hand, the direct patent-infringing use by the customer is excluded with sufficient certainty. 

IPPT20250821, UPC CoA, Kodak v Fujifilm
Request for confidentiality order in appeal rejected as superfluous (R. 262A RoP). Applicant has confirmed that the information to be protected in the appeal proceedings is not different from the information already protected in the CFI orders.

IPPT20250821, UPC CoA, Seoul v expert e-Commerce

A request for further submission made after the oral hearing should generally be denied (R. 36 RoP). There is no need to respond to the court’s introduction or to summarise the oral hearing.

IPPT20250821, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Huawei v MediaTek

Confidentiality club regime for information concerning licence agreements and negotiations between the parties, which covers the information as such, also in further pleadings or annexes (R. 262A RoP.)

IPPT20250821, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, HL Display v Black Sheep

Application to deposit physical objects dismissed (R. 170.1(c) RoP)). No explanation was given why the exhibits could not have been filed earlier, notably together with its statement of defence. The request to deposit the objects is therefore rejected.

IPPT20250821, UPC CFI, LD Hamburg, Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft v HMD Global

Extension of deadline for Statement of defence rejected (R. 23 RoP). The rapporteur suggests that the parties agree in advance on the confidentiality of technical and non-technical information that may be submitted in the Statement of defence, if necessary, so that only an application under R. 262.2 RoP is required, but not an application under R. 262A RoP.

IPPT20250822, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Tridonic v CUPOWER

IPPT20250821, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Tridonic v Inventronics

Against the backdrop of ongoing settlement talks, the proceedings are suspended at the joint request of both parties until resumed at the request of one of the parties (R. 295(d) RoP, R. 296.2 RoP).

IPPT20250821, UPC CoA, LIFE 365 v Lama & HP
Withdrawal of application to intervene in proceedings that have been closed granted (R. 265 RoP, R. 313 RoP). In the absence of specific provisions relating to the withdrawal of an application to intervene filed in accordance with the provisions of Rule 313 RoP, Rule 265 RoP shall apply by analogy to the withdrawal of an application to intervene. 

IPPT20250821, UPC CFI, CD Paris, Kinexon v Ballinno

Security deposit for legal costs released with consent of parties (R. 158 RoP). R. 352.2 RoP, applied by analogy.

IPPT20250821, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Hartmann Packaging v Omni-Pac

Closure of the interim procedure, instructions for oral hearing (R. 105.5 RoP, R. 110.1 RoP): skilled person, claim features, table for (provisional) damages, claimant should prepare to explain in the oral proceedings, based on its understanding of the technical teaching protected by the contested patent, […], parties are instructed to upload to the CMS any sketches or documents to which they may wish to refer for clarification during the oral hearing but which have not yet been submitted to the file.

IPPT20250821, UPC CoA, Microsoft v Suinno
Request for rectification rejected (R. 353 RoP, R. 356.3 RoP). No clerical mistake or obvious slip as the impugned decision, the Court of Appeal ruled on the basis of the request filed by Microsoft in its Request for discretionary review filed on 22 April 2025, which did not include a request that a further decision by default shall be final and that Suinno be put on notice pursuant to R. 356.3 RoP. 

IPPT20250821, UPC CoA, Barco v Yealink 
Request for simultaneous interpretation into Mandarin Chinese rejected (R. 109.2 RoP). In the absence of any consent by the Court to hear witnesses or experts at an oral hearing in a language other than the language of the proceedings, and absent any interpretation need for the judges, a Request for simultaneous interpretation during the oral hearing must be justified by the requesting party. If R. 109.2 RoP is applied, the arrangements for simultaneous translation are made by the Court. The costs are initially borne by the parties but can ultimately be compensated as costs of the proceedings. If, on the other hand, R. 109.4 RoP is applied, the party engages the interpreter and the costs are borne solely by that party (R. 109.4 and .5 RoP).

IPPT20250820, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Occlutech v Lepu Medical
Request for allocating a technically qualified judge in summary proceedings (Article 8(5) UPCA, R. 34.1 RoP, Article 62 UPCA, R. 211.2 RoP). The respondents have lodged an objection to the application for interim measures. In their statement of grounds for objection, they question not only the infringement of the patent in dispute, but also its legal validity.

IPPT20250820, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Centripetal v Keysight
Panel confirms dismissal of request for further written pleadings (R. 36 RoP), (R. 36 RoP)

IPPT20250820, UPC CoA, expert e-Commerce v Seoul Viosys
Leave to appeal - request to refer questions to the CJEU denied (R. 221 RoP, Article 21 UPCA). Right to seek a cost decision (Article 69 UPCA) elapses after expiry of the one month time limit (R. 151 RoP). Can only be remedied through reestablishment of rights (R. 320 RoP). UPCA and RoP must be interpreted in a manner that is consistent with EU law (Article 20 UPCA). The UPC cannot ask to the CJEU to interpret the UPCA or the RoP: a referral of questions to the CJEU on interpretation of Art. 69 UPCA and R. 151 RoP as suggested by expert cannot be made. For there to be jurisdiction of the CJEU (Article 21 UPCA) the request for a preliminary ruling must concern a rule of EU law other than the Charter applicable to the case in the main proceedings. No reason to refer any questions to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling regarding the one month time limit of R. 151 RoP (Article 14 Enforcement Directive). The provision is not complex. The requirement does not go beyond what is necessary to achieve their objective. The provision clearly does not disproportionately affect the party’s right to effective judicial protection. In addition R. 320 RoP provides for re-establishment of rights.  

IPPT20250819, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, Adeia v Disney
Deadline extension due to late filed exhibits for filing claimant’s rejoinder to defendant’s reply to the defence in the counter claim for revocation as well as claimant’s reply to defendant’s defence in the application to amend, begin on 5 August 2025. (R. 29 RoP)

IPPT20250819, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Solvay
Separation of proceedings at the court’s initiative prior to Statement of defence (R. 303.2 RoP,). While service on defendants 1 and 2 was effected on 3 June 2025, service on defendants 3 and 4 has not yet been effected. For the defendants 1 and 2, the deadline for the SoD expires on 3 September 2025, while the deadline for defendants 3 and 4 has not even begun to run yet. It is unreasonable to expect the claimant to wait for service on defendants 3 and 4 while the proceedings against defendants 1 and 2 can continue. 

IPPT20250819, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Wilus v Asustek
An extension of one week for lodging Statement of defence because of confidentiality regime request is sufficient (R. 23 RoP, R. 262A RoP). A further extension of the time period is out of question taking the Defendants’ 2 to 6 behaviour into account. If the unredacted version played such an important role, they should have raised this immediately after service of the statement of claim in order to avoid a delay in the proceedings.
 

IPPT20250819, UPC CFI, LD Brussels, OrthoApnea
Rectification of obvious calculation error in cost decision of  25 July 2025 (R. 353 RoP). The Court cannot, in the context of a R. 353 RoP procedure, reconsider the grounds for its decision. The time limits set out in R 221 (1) RoP are not adjusted (in the sense of suspended) by the present Correction Order (or request for such) and the Cost Decision itself remains decisive.

IPPT20250818, UPC CFI, President, OPPO v Innovative Sonic
Language of the proceedings at the request of defendants changed from German to English, the language in which the patent was granted (R. 323 RoP, Article 49(5) UPCA). For the judge rapporteur to decide whether the oral hearing may be held in German as an alternative. Considering the additional work and potential difficulties incurred by continuing with the case management in English and preparing for the oral phase in another language, this possibility should preferably be discussed with the Judge-rapporteur rather than being decided at this stage. 

IPPT20250815, UPC CoA, RiVOLUTION v Cilag
Application for suspensive effect unsuccessful because the reasons for the decision are not yet available (R. 223 RoP). If, as in this case, the grounds for the decision are not yet available, an obvious error in the contested decision can only be assumed if it is possible to identify an obvious error without knowledge of the grounds for the decision. This is the case, for example, if the operative part of the decision pronounces a legal consequence that does not result from either the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court or the Rules of Procedure. 15-days deadline for filing the grounds of an appeal only begins to run upon delivery of a reasoned decision (R. 224. 2(b) RoP),

IPPT20250815, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, HL Display v Black Sheep
Order following interim conference, rescheduling hearing date and setting the value of the dispute at € 500.000 (R. 105.5 RoP).

IPPT20250815, UPC CoA, Sun Patent Trust v Vivo Mobile
Application for suspensive effect of appeal inadmissible  absent a pending appeal (R. 223.1 RoP, Art. 74 UPCA). In cases of extreme urgency the applicant may apply at any time without formality for an order for suspensive effect to the standing judge pursuant to R. 223.4 RoP. Nevertheless, for this provision to be applicable, the applicant must first have lodged a Statement of appeal (R. 224.1 RoP) and paid the appeal fee in accordance with R. 228 RoP. Lodging the Statement of grounds of appeal is not a prerequisite (R. 224.2 RoP).

IPPT20250815, UPC CoA, Ballinno v UEFA
Security deposit for legal costs released with consent of parties (R. 158 RoP). R. 352.2 RoP, applied by analogy..

IPPT20250815, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, AdvanSix v Troy Chemical
Stay of proceedings upon mutual request until 13 February 2026  (R. 295(d) RoP). 

IPPT20250814, UPC CFI, LD Hamburg, Dyson v Dreame
Preliminary injunction (Article 62 UPCA, R. 211 RoP). International jurisdiction UPC including Spain (for Defendants 2 and 3). UPC has international jurisdiction with respect to Defendants 2) and 3) as they are domiciled in Germany (Article 4(1) BR). This extends to the territories of the Contracting Member States of the UPCA for which the European patent is in effect (including Spain). With respect to Defendants 1) and 3) the UPC has also jurisdiction to decide upon the infringement as far as it relates to acts infringing the Spanish national part of the patent-in-suit.  The UPC has international jurisdiction for all patent infringements committed in a UPC member state, regardless of the Defendant's place of residence (Article 7(2) BR).The jurisdiction granted by Art. 7 (2) BR [Defendant 1] is not limited to the Member State as according to Art. 34 UPCA Decisions of the Court shall cover, in the case of a European patent, the territory of those Contracting Member States for which the European patent is in effect. The international jurisdiction with respect to Defendant 4) follows Art. 8(1) BR. No plausible allegation of infringing acts by Defendants 2 and 4  in Spain.  the Applicant did not provide any reliable facts that Defendant 2) is or was involved in any marketing of the attacked embodiments in Spain. The same applies to Defendant 4). Defendant 3) is subject to the universal jurisdiction of the UPC at its seat, including alleged infringing acts with respect to the Spanish national part of the patent in suit. As Authorized Representative” pursuant to the EU regulations 2023/988/EU on general product safety (GPSR) and 2019/1020/EU on market surveillance and compliance of products, Defendants 3 is an essential party in the distribution in the EU. Without an authorized representative in the EU, Defendant 1) is not legally able to sale the attacked embodiments in the EU. Defendant 3 serves as an anchor defendant for the international jurisdiction with respect of Defendant 1) regarding the Spanish national part of the patent, if the criteria of Art. 8 (1) BR are met. Defendants 1, 2 and 3 are infringers in the UPCA countries and Spain (Defendant 1) or only in the UPCA countries (Defendants 2 and 4) (Article 25 UPCA, Article 62 UPCA). Defendant 1) is liable for the patent infringement in the UPCA countries and in Spain as it is the producer and website operator in European countries and thereby inter alia offering the products […]. Defendant 2) is liable as the Germany based “Official Distributor of Dreame” and seller. Its liability is limited to UPCA countries as the Court has no jurisdiction regarding the infringement of the Spanish national part of the patent in suit. The same applies to Defendant 4), who is the Swedish affiliate to Defendant 1) and runs the country specific website www.se.dreamtech.com as well as a retail store in Stockholm. As authorized representative Defendant 3 is an intermediary whose services are essential for the distribution of the attacked embodiments in the European Union, including Spain (Article 62 UPCA, Article 9(1)(a) Enforcement directive). 

IPPT20250814, UPC CFI, LD Hamburg, Ballinno v UEFA
The security for procedural costs in the amount of EUR 56.000,- provided by Ballinno B.V. is to be released to the Defendants. Parties can use the security provided under R. 158 RoP as means to settle a pending application to cost decision, R. 150 RoP, in analogy to R. 265 RoP.

IPPT20250814, UPC CoA, Barco v Yealink
Application for leave to change the claim rejected (R. 263 RoP). An application must explain why such change was not included in the original pleading. Leave shall not be granted if, all circumstances considered, the party seeking the amendment cannot satisfy the Court that (a) the amendment in question could not have been made with reasonable diligence at an earlier stage; and (b) the amendment will not unreasonably hinder the other party in the conduct of its action. Leave to limit a claim in an action unconditionally shall always be granted. Request for exchange of further written pleadings rejected (R. 36 RoP, R. 222 RoP). Parties are entitled to make references to what was said at the oral hearing, subject of course to the duty to not misrepresent cases or facts. If the opposing party experiences a need to nuance or correct statements it made at the oral hearing, it can do so in the Statement of grounds of appeal.

IPPT20250814, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Dolby v Beko
Plaintiff may submit a written statement on the defendants’ FRAND objection (R. 36 RoP)

IPPT20250813, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, Winnow v Orbisk
Patent partially revoked (Article 65 UPCA); not infringed (Article 25 UPCA). Lack of inventive step  (Article 56 EPC) because error-cleaning steps suggested by common general knowledge, as mentioned above, are so basic that any Skilled Person would perform them, regardless of how unreliable they think the data is. In any case, the Court finds that it is clear from the video, and even more so from its application in a live commercial kitchen environment, that the captured weights will inevitably contain errors, such as when a bin is changed or when users rest their hands, plates or pans on the scale. If the counter claimant seeks revocation of claims not asserted against it, and those claims are upheld, a compensation of costs is in order (Article 69 UPCA, R. 152 RoP).

IPPT20250813, UPC CoA, Boehringer Ingelheim v Zentiva
Succesfull appeal: preliminary injunction granted because of imminent infringement (Article 62 UPCA, R. 206 RoP). In the context of marketing of generics, the mere application for a marketing authorisation by a generics company does not amount to an imminent infringement, nor does the grant of such an authorisation create one. Completion of the national procedures for health technology assessment, pricing and reimbursement for a generic medicine can amount to an imminent infringement. Whether a premature Prior Evaluation Procedure (PEP) application can constitute imminent infringement depends on what can be done on the Portuguese market during the period before the patent expires. Obtaining of PEP  long before the expiry of the patent without any justification can be an indication that the implementer is setting the stage for infringing acts. The absence of any hard mechanism to stop an infringing offer of the products, and the absence of prenotification being immediately visible to third parties to allow action to be taken by the patent holder to prevent infringement creates expectations from public – as well as private – hospitals that the generics will be offered ahead of patent expiry. This gives credence to the claim that the preliminary measures are necessary. As per Art. 34 UPCA, decisions of the Court shall cover the territory of those Contracting Member States for which the patent has effect. Injunctions, as a rule, will cover all those Contracting Member States. A restriction requires the presence of certain circumstances, such as when a claimant has restricted the territorial scope of its action (Art. 76(1) UPCA). Application for an order to communicate information of existing infringement denied (Article 67 UPCA). When there is no allegation of any completed infringement and no indication that the requested information actually exists, as well as any explanation that the requested information is reasonably necessary for the purpose of advancing that party's case, the purpose of such an order is lacking. Although national law is a source of law pursuant to Art. 24 UPCA, it is for the parties to bring forward facts and evidence about the content of national law and its application. 

IPPT20250813, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, Genevant v Moderna
Limited extension for filing Reply to statement of defence and Statement of defence to counterclaim for revocation (R. 9.3 RoP, R. 29(a) RoP, R. 262A RoP). In view of the circumstances of this case, the date of the uploading of the agreement of the party regarding a confidentiality club, shall be taken as the start date for the two month time period. A limited extension for filing the Reply/SoDCfR will thus be granted until 24 September 2025. A  further extension until 4 October 2025 as requested, is not justified.

IPPT20250812, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Headwater Research v Samsung 
At the request of both parties, the language of the proceedings will be changed from German to English, the language of the patent ((Article 49(3) UPCA, R. 321 RoP).

IPPT20250812, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, American Wave Machine v Surftown
Confidentiality club order (R. 262A RoP) indicating authorised person and indicating as confidential information the  information relating to technical details of the challenged embodiment as highlighted in grey in the statements of defence and the counterclaims for revocation of Defendants […].

IPPT20250812, UPC CoA, Lionra v Cisco
Undisputed extension for submission Statement of response as Cisco did not have access to the unredacted version of the appeal when it filed its statement of appeal (R. 262A RoP, R. 235 RoP). Extension limited to only two weeks since the information concerned is a relatively small portion of the grounds of appeal.

IPPT20250811, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Syntorr v Arthrex
According to Rule 158(1) RoP, Claimant’s insurance policy is no adequate security. Claimant to provide adequate security for costs (€ 2 million) by deposit or bank guarantee.

IPPT20250808, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Sunstar v CeraCon
Panel confirmation of order dismissing leave to amend counterclaim for revocation by introducing new prior art (R. 263 RoP, R. 333 RoP). Same principles of weighing of interests and discretion apply when the amendment concerns a counterclaim for revocation. On a regular basis, the interest of the claimant of an infringement action and the interest of the defendant of a counterclaim for revocation outweigh the interest of the defendant of the infringement action and claimant of the counterclaim for revocation in a situation where the additional prior art document that is introduced after or only shortly before the submission of the defence to the counterclaim for revocation is easy to be found in an usual (electronic) prior art search when using a proper search string, regardless of whether the failure to include such document in the counterclaim for revocation constitutes negligence. Taking all circumstances into account, the panel is not convinced that there was reasonable diligence on the Claimant CCR’s side (R. 263.2(a) RoP)

IPPT20250806, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, NUC v Hurom
Confidential attorney-client-privileged information in cost proceedings (R. 262A RoP). The breakdown of hours worked between the lawyers involved is confidential information belonging to both the lawyers and their client and is also subject to the attorney-client-privilege. The distribution of hours could allow conclusions to be drawn about the working methods and, in some circumstances, the importance attached to the case. Confidential information of the UPC representatives of a party to the proceedings is not excluded from protection under R. 262A RoP. Restricting access to lawyers alone is not permitted under R. 262A.6 RoP without the consent of the party concerned. Taking the circumstances of the individual case and the interests of the parties involved into account once again, restricting access to specific natural persons of Respondents named in advance is not justified either. Given the restricted purpose for which the information is to be used, the Respondents are obliged anyway not to disclose the information to persons within their organization who do not need it for the purpose of the cost proceedings.

IPPT20250806, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Sanofi v Amgen
Stay of infringement action and counterclaim for revocation regarding EP 857 (R. 295(m) RoP) pending the outcome of the appeal against the first instance decision of the Local Division Düsseldorf in the infringement proceedings regarding patent EP 3 536 712 (“EP712”). The question of infringement of EP 857 involves the same factual and legal questions as the case UPC_CFI_505/2024 in relation to EP 712. Under these circumstances, the Court finds that the stay of the proceedings is in accordance with the requirements of proper administration of justice. […]. If the appeal is successful, it is reasonable and fair that the Claimants have a chance to present new legal arguments and that the Defendants still have the stage of first instance to demonstrate why this case should be approached differently [...]. In the view of efficiency the stay also effects the counterclaim for revocation.
 

IPPT20250806, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Dish v AYLO
No separate proceedings for cost decision for costs incurred in connection with the application for, opposition to or defence against procedural orders ( Rules 150 RoP), including orders for security for costs pursuant to R. 158 RoP. Instead, these costs will be assessed as part of the total costs of the proceedings in the cost assessment proceedings pursuant to R. 150 RoP following the decision on the merits.

IPPT20250806, UPC CFI, CD Milan, Bodycap v EPO
No annulment of decision of the EPO to reject a request for unitary effect because of an incorrect name and postal address submitted by a third party on behalf of the proprietors (R. 97.4 RoP). The fact that the third party was not aware of the change in address or the irregularity does not excuse the irregularity. The one month time limit stipulated by Rule 7.3 RPU already shows enough flexibility for the legal system. Allowing any extensions to this time frame would contradict legal certainty.

IPPT20250805, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Wonderland Nurserygoods v Cybex
Decision not to bifurcate taken before closure of written procedure (Article 33(3) UPCA, R. 37.2 RoP).

IPPT20250805, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, 10x Genomics v Curio Bioscience
Confidentiality regime (Rule 262A RoP) for certain information in Defendant’s Application for a cost decision dated 16 July 2025 

IPPT20250805, UPC CFI, LD Dusseldorf, igus v Whale Technology
Patent infringed (Article 25 UPCA); Default judgement issued against the defendant, upon failure to file a Statement of Defence. (Article 37 UPCS , Rule 355 RoP). It is irrelevant that the Rules of Procedure do not expressly provide for the issuance of a default judgment for this type of default, due to the explicit mention of the issuance of a default decision in the UPC Statute, which takes precedence over the Rules of Procedure. In the statement of claim, the plaintiff conclusively argues that the contested embodiment literally implements all features of claim 1 of the contested patent.

IPPT20250804, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, Genevant v Moderna
Confirmation of confidentiality regime agreed by the parties (Rule 262A RoP).

IPPT20250804, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, Advanced Brain Monitoring v Philips
No need to amend case because of amended B2 version of European Patent (R. 263 RoP). Article 68 EPC clarifies that from the outset the patent shall be deemed not to have had the effects specified in Art. 64 and Art. 67 EPC to the extent that the patent is limited. Therefore, already on the date on which the SoC was filed, the B1 version of the patent no longer existed and had been replaced by the B2 version with retroactive active effect. Thus, the B2 text is deemed to exist/be valid from the date on which the patent was first granted. 

IPPT20250804, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Hurom v NUC
Additional two weeks extension, because of summer vacation period, of the time period for comments on claimant’s request for imposition of a penalty payment to enforce the Defendant’s obligation to provide information (R. 9.3(a) RoP, Article 67 UPCA) . 

IPPT20250804, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Imusyn v BAG Diagnostics
Request to assign a technically qualified judge in summary proceedings (Article 8(5) UPCA, R. 34 RoP, R. 211 RoP). Although the appointment of a technically qualified judge ex officio is only mentioned in R. 34 RoP and thus in the provisions governing the main proceedings, Art. 8(5) sentence 2 UPCA generally grants the panel, and thus also in summary proceedings, the right to call in such a judge on its own initiative after hearing the parties if it deems this appropriate.

IPPT20250804, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, CUP&CINO v Alpina Coffee
Decision not to bifurcate taken before closure of written procedure (Article 33(3) UPCA, R. 37.2 RoP).

IPPT20250801, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, American Wave v Surftown
Confidentiality club regime (Rule 262A RoP). Claimant to explain the extent to which […] requires access to the information classified as confidential in his role as “external advisor in the underlying proceedings’”

IPPT20250801, UPC CFI, LD Paris, NJ Diffusion v Gisela Mayer
Infringement claim rejected (Article 25 UPCA). Infringement action admissible. Explanation of proposed claim interpretation in the Statement of claim only required “where appropriate”(R. 13.1(n) RoP). In the present case, the applicant considered that the interpretation of the terms of the contested claims was not necessary because it considered that those terms had no particular meaning in the technical field of hairpieces that differed from their common meaning and that the patent description did not give them any special meaning either. Claim scope imited to only the claimed edge-tot-edge method (Article 69 EPC). The patent itself describes two distinct modes of implementation (0024 and 0028), and a person skilled in the art will understand in the context of the patent that ‘edge to edge’ is distinct from ‘superimposition’. It is irrelevant that the descriptive part still refers to the superimposed embodiment; what matters is the scope of protection as defined by the claims, which are expressly limited to ‘edge to edge’. The Court also notes that the addition of the words ‘placed edge to edge’ in claim 1 should have led, at the time of grant of the patent, to the removal of the ‘superimposed’ embodiment of the invention mentioned in the description, as this embodiment does not fall within the scope of protection of the patent as finally claimed. No late filed claim of infringement by equivalence in Statement of reply (R. 29 RoP) as this claim does not change the nature of the claimant's procedural strategy, which merely adapts it in light of the arguments put forward by GM in its defence, and the defendant was able to respond to it in its rejoinder. No equivalency in the absence of the same function (Article 2, Interpretation Protocol). Appropriate to first answer a question that is the lowest common denominator and constitutes the first criterion for examining equivalence: Do the modified (or substitute) means essentially fulfil the same function to achieve essentially the same effect?. Claim against bankruptcy receiver of claimant and intervening party (R. 313 RoP) for payment of provisional costs inadmissible under French law (Article 24 UPCA, R. 8 RoP, R. 311 RoP). That the bodies responsible for the collective proceedings have chosen to continue the proceedings (paragraph 18 of GM's final statement of defence), does not in any way demonstrate the existence of fault. The French Court of Cassation has repeatedly stated that the liability of the bodies involved in collective proceedings is a special liability regime requiring proof of gross and independent negligence. Such fault is characterised, for example, if the insolvency practitioner decides to continue the proceedings when the company's situation is irretrievably compromised and does not seek the cessation of the company's activities or its liquidation

IPPT20250801, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, Abbott v Menarini
No postponement of scheduled oral hearing in provisional measures proceedings, further instructions (R. 9.3 RoP, R. 209.1(b) RoP). Due to the inherent urgency of the hearing of an application for interim measures, a postponement of the hearing can only be considered in very special circumstances. No special circumstances are present or asserted by Defendants.

IPPT20250801, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Centripetal v Keysight
Request for further written pleadings dismissed (R. 36 RoP)

IPPT20250801, UPC CFI, LD Hamburg, Alexion Pharmaceuticals v Samsung Bioepsis - II
IPPT20250801, UPC CFI, LD Hamburg, Alexion Pharmaceuticals v Samsung Bioepsis - I
Cost decision (R. 151 RoP). With regard to the Defendants’ claim for reimbursement of litigation fees, in the court's view, the litigation fees for the two lawyers and patent attorneys are justified. There is no need to provide further proof of costs. In contrast to this, the Defendant has failed to provide a comprehensible explanation as to why it was appropriate and necessary for two English solicitors to be involved in the present proceedings. On the contrary, the costs incurred for the private expert […] are also eligible for reimbursement. Insofar as the Applicant also objects to the travel expenses claimed on the grounds that the patent attorneys arrived two days before the oral hearing, this seems reasonable.

IPPT20250801, UPC CFI, LD Dusseldorf, Ona Patents v Google Ireland
IPPT20250801, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Ona Patents v Apple
Order regarding supplementary presentations and the submission of documents are necessary in the written procedure (R. 9.1 RoP, R. 35 RoP)

IPPT20250801, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Huawei v MediaTek
Confidentiality ordered (R. 262A RoP) of text passages […] concerning the licence negotiations between the parties (R. 190 RoP)

IPPT20250801, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Powermat v Anker Innovations
Decision on request of defendants to stay infringement action postponed until after the oral hearing (R. 295 RoP). FRAND counterclaim.

IPPT20250801, UPC CoA, Strabag & Chainzone v Swarco
Restrictions on access to and use of information by a party and its representatives may only be subject to restrictions in accordance with R. 262A RoP. An application under Rule 262.2 RoP does not automatically grant provisional protection against the disclosure of information by the other party. A party's written submissions and evidence are, in principle, made directly accessible to the other party without any restrictions as to its use or recipients, unless a simultaneous request is made under R. 262A.1 RoP when the document is lodged. R. 262.2 RoP relates only to a limitation of access to documents to the public. An applicant who does not request protection of the relevant information at the time of its submission does not take the necessary confidentiality measures. This results in the information losing its character as a trade secret. For this reason a request under R. 262A.3 RoP cannot be granted at a later stage. Trade secret product characteristics are those that are not readily available to third parties but can only be determined after time-consuming analysis (Article 58 UPCA, Article 2 Trade Secrets Directive). Scope of confidentiality obligation (Article 58 UPCA, R. 262A RoP). Confidentiality requests cannot be so broad so as to prevent a party from divulging to third parties information that it obtained through legal means outside of the procedure (such as through its own measurements or tests).

IPPT20250801, UPC, CFI, LD Munich, Headwater v Samsung
Patent revoked because claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 10 and 35 are invalid due to an extension of subject matter (Article 138(1)(c) EPC, Article 123(2) EPC). On test for added matter UPC Court of Appeal, 14 February 2025, UPC_CoA_382/2024 (Abbott/Sibio),.  [...] it follows from the above principles set out by the Court of Appeal that the content of an application must not be considered to be a reservoir from which features pertaining to separate embodiments of the application could be combined in order to artificially create a particular embodiment which has not so been disclosed in the application as filed. This test essentially aligns with the long-standing case law of the EPO Boards of Appeal. No added matter for the mere reason that the original claims have been replaced entirely by a new claim set which is not based on the original (independent) claims. By omitting the feature of verifiability the claimed subject matter extends beyond the content of the application as filed. Also the combination of features as claimed is not originally disclosed.