2025 UPC December

IPPT20251230, UPC CFI, CD Paris, PAPST v EPO
In its decision of 10 November 2025, the EPO rejected the request of registration of unitary effect of the patent in suit, based on the fact that the patent had not been granted for all member states of the UPC that were participating at the time the request was filed. (Malta) Request for annulment of the decision of the EPO rejected.  (Rule 97 RoP). The UPC applies EU law in its entirety and respects its primacy in accordance with Art. 1(2) and Art. 20 of the UPCA, including reviewing a decision by the EPO. Compliance with the guarantees afforded by the EU legal order in administrative proceedings is all the more important for the EPO as the competent authority, so that the question of whether the EPO is bound by EU law can be left open. Unitary effect is not tied to the designation of the states in the patent application, but rather to the grant of the European patent as the final result, as well as to the date of the request for unitary effect. (Article 142 EPC , Article 149 EPC) . This is a deliberate legislative choice to ensure the unitary character of the European patent with unitary effect and cannot be regarded as an unintended gap. Regulation No. 1257/2012 on Unitary Patent protection does not provide that the designation of one or more Member States shall be deemed to be the designation of all Member States. The unitary character of the European patent with unitary effect requires that the grant of the patent give rise to the same substantive rights in all Member States. Thus, if the patent has not been granted for a Member State, these substantive rights cannot arise in that State, and the patent does not have a unitary character. 

IPPT20251229, UPC COA, Amazon v InterDigital

Suspensive effect of appeal from anti-suit order dismissed. (Rule 223 RoP). Amazon has not established that irreversible harm is imminent and that not ordering suspensive effect would render the appeal-at-hand devoid of purpose. Enforcement (Rule. 354.4 RoP). The risk that the court may initiate penalty proceedings of its own motion under R. 354.4 RoP , at any time, does not justify an order of suspensive effect.  

IPPT20251229, UPC COA, VMR Products v NJOY

Appeal rejected: patent revocation upheld.  Late filed new grounds for invalidity in first instance Defence to application to amend . (Rule 32 RoP, Rule. 263 RoP) . Defence to the Application to amend the patent does not provide an opportunity to introduce new grounds of invalidity in relation to the patent, such as new prior art considered - either novelty destroying or, convincing starting points for the assessment of lack of inventive step, unless leave to amend the case is granted . Specific new arguments may be admitted into the proceedings in consideration of specific circumstances of the case.  An overly strict application is contradicted by R. 44 RoP requiring an “indication” of the facts relied on.  “Fairness” may require that the claimant in an action for revocation be allowed to introduce new facts and evidence in response to the Statement of defence. This may include evidence to prove a point already made by the claimant on the common general knowledge of the skilled person, or to rebut evidence brought forward by the defendant on this point.   Inventive step (Article 56 EPC)  Is to be established in accordance with the Sanofi V Amgen decision .The objective problem must be assessed by establishing what the invention adds to the state of the art, not just by looking at the individual features of the claim, but by comparing the claim as a whole and  considering the inventive concept underlying the invention.  The objective problem should not contain pointers to the claimed solution . The objective technical problem is limited to “providing a vaporizer that facilitates checking the status of the inserted cartomizer”. And not ‘facilitating to check the status of the battery electrical contacts’ as suggested by VMR Products. The invention in  prior art “Pan” is a realistic starting point for an inventive step analysis, as it belongs to the same field of technology and discloses several features similar to those relevant to the invention.

IPPT20251229, UPC CFI, LD Dusseldorf, Align v Angelalign
Leave to appeal the order disregarding non-infringement arguments rejected. (Rule 220 RoP). No reason to grant leave to appeal, given the discretion of the Court of First Instance on procedural matters and the the order’s close connection to the specific circumstances of this case, consistent application and interpretation of the RoP does not urge for leave to appeal.
 

IPPT20251224, UPC CoA, Suinno V Microsoft
Leave to appeal against cost decisions denied. (R. 221.RoP). It is evident from the order that the judge-rapporteur has made a thorough and detailed assessment of the costs.

IPPT20251223, UPC CFI, CD Paris, Bosch v. Valeo
Jurisdiction and competence of the court. (Article 33 UPCA). CD Paris lacks jurisdiction to hear the Infringement action as several defendants in the action have their domicile within the territory of the UPCA ; action transferred to LD Düsseldorf. The local division, and not the central division, has jurisdiction hear an infringement action (Article 33 1 (b)). In the case of multiple defendants, where one of them has his domicile, or its principal place of business,  or its place of business, situated within the territory of a State contracting party, whereas the other defendants have their domicile or principal establishment, or their establishment, is outside the territory of the contracting member states. In the absence of an agreement by the parties to bring the action before the CD Paris , the CD paris does not have jurisdiction. Language of proceedings changed to English (Article 49 UPCA, Rule 323 RoP).

IPPT20251223, UPC COA, Sumi v Syngenta 
Application for rehearing withdrawn jointly. proceedings closed. (Rule. 265.1 RoP)

IPPT20251223, UPC COA, Lindal Dispenser v Rocep-Lusol
Joint withdrawal of appeal permitted, proceedings closed. (Rule. 265 RoP). Reimbursement of  60 % of court fees ordered - action withdrawn before proceedings concluded. (Rule. 370.9 (b)(i) RoP)
 

IPPT20251222, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, InterDigital v Amazon
Confirmed ex-parte interim measure (R. 209.4 RoP, R. 212.3 RoP) prohibiting anti-suit injunctions or equivalent measures preventing pursuing patent infringement proceedings before UPC based on their European patents subject to the jurisdiction of the UPC (Article 56 UPCA). UK interim-licences equate to an anti-suit injunction (“ASI”). The UK measures referred to as “interim licence” or “adjustable licence“ are an anti-anti suit injunction,  exclusively directed against the Applicants enforcing their IP rights in foreign jurisdictions and therefore also before the UPC. No justifiable ground for such an order, which is directed against a party turning to a foreign court to have it assess that party‘s patent rights. Such order is especially not needed to safeguard the UK proceedings. Applicants have a legal interest in  defending against such an order even though it violates the ordre public of the European Union and therefore also the ordre public of the UPC contracting member states, which renders it null and void and thus unenforceable in UPC contracting member states. UK Final FRAND-rate setting is a measure equivalent to an ASI in the sense of the Impugned Order, should it encroach upon a party’s fundamental right to enforce its patent rights before the UPC. It is an excessive procedural tactic against comity and the acquis communtaire of the EU and the UPC contracting member states to impose such a concept upon foreign territories by way of a relief, which solely aims at depriving Applicants of pursuing their fundamental (intellectual) property rights and seeking access to justice before a EU court. This Order does not limit UK courts to attach whatever legal consequences to orders, judgment or other decision as long as such effects are strictly limited to the UK territory and do not attach any negative consequences to the Applicants for enforcing their patent rights in relation to the UPCA contracting member states.

IPPT20251222, UPC COA, Insulet v EOFLow
Limited access to written pleadings and evidence granted to law firm (Rule. 262. RoP). The documents shall be redacted of personal data prior to making them available. A law firm is also  a member of the public within the meaning of R. 262.1 (b) RoP. Commercial interests with the application does not preclude an interest in accessing documents.  The law firm does not intend to commercialise access to the requested documents by making them available against payment.

IPPT20251219, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Ecovacs v Roborock
Ex- Parte order for inspection and preservation of evidence revoked on review, with the exception of confidentiality orders.  (Rule 197.3, 197.4 RoP). The submission for an ex parte order must be complete and must not mislead the Court, (Rule 192.3 RoP). If there has been a breach of Rule 192.3 RoP, the question of  whether the order can still be upheld in part does not arise. In these cases, the order is deemed to has been issued unlawfully. 

IPPT20251219, UPC CoA, Hefei v Grundfos
€ 75.000 security for costs against Chinese domiciled applicant. Even if the party is solvent, enforcement difficulties alone justify security. An order for security for costs can only be made against applicants, not in their favour (Article 69(4) UPCA). An ‘applicant’ is the party who initiates legal proceedings by filing an application. This means that, at first instance, an application by the claimant for an order to provide security for costs is not admissible. Nor does the infringement claimant’s right to make such an application arise from the fact that the defendant has brought a counterclaim for annulment. Such a counterclaim for annulment is a direct consequence of the infringement action brought by the claimant. An order requiring the defendant and counter-claimant to provide security for costs would unduly impair the defendant’s ability to defend himself. The party entitled to make an application under Art. 69(4) UPCA in the appeal proceedings is the respondent. This generally also applies where the respondent on appeal is the claimant. If both parties lodge an appeal, each party may only require security for costs in respect of the other party’s appeal costs. This also applies in the case of a cross-appeal. An exception applies where the defendant in the appeal proceedings rightly asserts a manifest error in the first-instance decision. In such cases, only the defendant may require security for costs for the appeal proceedings.

IPPT20251219, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, HP v Shenzen Moan
Preliminary injuction granted. (Article 62(2) UPCA, Rule 211 RoP, Rule 209 RoP). A decision by default is not considered. Regular PI order is applicable. (Rule 355.1(a) RoP, Rule 209(1) RoP). If the defendant does not lodge an objection within the time period set by the Court, the application for provisional measures can be decided based on the applicant’s submissions by means of a regular order in the PI proceedings. It is more likely than not that Patents A and B are infringed (Rule 211.2 RoP). by the offer and distribution of the challenged embodiments by Defendant 1.

IPPT20251219, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Lina Medical v Tonglu Qianyan
Following an order for preservation and inspection of evidence, the unredacted version of the detailed description provided by the expert is disclosed to the Applicant without giving the Defendant the opportunity to comment on confidentiality interests. (Article 60 UPCA, Rule 199, Rule 197, 196 RoP). Disclosure does not put the Defendant at an unreasonable disadvantage. The defendant cannot be reached via the CMS. Order was served on 18 November 2025, and the Defendant had been aware of the access code to the CMS. The Defendant had sufficient time to prepare for this situation and hand over the access code to a UPC representative. If the Defendant chooses not to do so, that is its own decision. This cannot be to the disadvantage of the Applicant.

IPPT20251219, UPC CFI, LD Munich, GXB-Bio Corporation v Myriad
Patent revoked for added matter. (Article 138(1)(c) EPC, Article 65(2) UPCA) The skilled person does not directly and unambiguously derive from Claim 1, that the claimed method for quantifying an expression level of a target gene refers to a target gene “in a FFPE tissue sample of human breast cancer tissues” and that the endogenous reference gene for the normalisation of the target gene is OAZ1. Claim 25 refers to a method for quantifying an expression level of a target gene without mentioning that the target gene is “in a FFPE tissue sample of human breast cancer tissues”. Other claims also contain no indication that the method according to claim 25 refers to a method for quantifying an expression level of a target gene “in a FFPE tissue sample of human breast cancer tissues”.Nor can the person skilled in the art derive directly and unambiguously from the other disclosure content that this belongs to the invention.The application also does not clearly and unambiguously disclose that OAZ1 is used as the (sole) reference gene for normalizing the expression level of a target gene in a FFPE breast cancer sample. The disclosure of a feature as such is not sufficient. It is necessary that it be directly and unambiguously disclosed as belonging to the invention. No implicit disclosure can be assumed . It is not apparent that the expression stability of OAZ1 required for normalization is a clear and unambiguous consequence of what is explicitly mentioned. Subclaims 2 and 3 also extend beyond the content of the parental application as filed for the same reasons as claim 1. Application to amend the patent based on Auxiliary Requests 1,2 or 3 refused.  (Rule 30 RoP). Each of these Auxiliary Requests extends beyond the content of the application as filed. 
 

IPPT20251219, UPC COA, Viatris Santé v Merz

No need to adjudicate (Rule. 360 RoP). R. 360 RoP also applies to procedural appeals devoid of purpose.  

IPPT20251219, UPC COA, Docket Navigator v Syngenta  

Request for access to written pleadings and evidence rejected.  (Art. 45 UPCA , Rule. 262.1(b) RoP). Copyright is not a general interest that must be observed when a member of the public requests access to the register. Granting access to written pleadings and evidence to a company, which intends to make the information public is not an interest protected under Art. 45 UPCA.  

IPPT20251219, UPC COA, UERAN Technology v Xiaomi 

Appeal on change of language proceedings dismissed. (Article 49 UPCA). Parties not being domiciled in countries where the language of the proceedings chosen by the claimant is an official language is an important factor in a decision on an application to use the language of the patent. Relevant circumstances should be related to the specific case and the position of the parties, in particular the position of the defendant. If the outcome of balancing of interests is equal, the position of the defendant is the decisive factor. 

IPPT20251218, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Polidoro v Bekaert
Counterclaim for revocation unfounded (Article 65 UPCA), Patent infringed (Article 25 UPCA). No added matter (Article 138(1)(c) EPC): same conclusion as the BoA of the EPO in the opposition decision regarding the patent-in-suit. Sufficient disclosure (Article 138(1)(b) EPC): Consistent with said claim construction, at least one way for carrying out the claimed premixed burner is disclosed, such that the persons skilled in the art can implement its structure and make routine calibrations to fit the number, shape and pattern of the disk holes to desired flow conditions at the inlet of the burner (reference to such calibration process is made in para. [0015] of the patent-in-suit). Therefore, the claimed configuration is sufficiently disclosed. 

IPPT20251217, UPC COA, Huawei v TP-Link
Application for suspensive effect successful. (Article 74 UPCA,  Rule 223 RoP). TP link denied access to written submissions. Order made without prior hearing of the applicant due to the limited time remaining before the expiry of the implementation period. Applicant given opportunity to comment on the application for suspensive effect within the time limit for responding to the appeal.

IPPT20251216, UPC CFI, LD Dusseldorf, Align v Angelalign
Non-infringement arguments disregarded, request for the exchange of further written pleadings dismissed. (Rule 209 RoP, Rule 36 RoP, Rule 9 RoP). Submitted objection does not contain any non-infringement arguments as a reason why the application should fail. New non infringement  arguments cannot be seen as a response to the Reply of the Applicant, or as a further deepening of previously raised arguments. Non-infringement arguments and evidence in the Rejoinder not submitted in accordance with the time limit set the sense of Rule. 9.2 RoP. Right to be heart (Article 76 UPCA). The refusal of completely new non- infringement arguments and evidence raised for the first time in the Rejoinder, cannot be seen as a violation of the Defendants’ right to be heard.

IPPT20251212, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Sanofi v Zentiva
Counterclaim for revocation of a secondary use medical claim patent successful, patent revoked in entirety. Infringement action dismissed. (Article 56 EPC,  Article 65 UPCA , Article 25 UPCA)  . Validity - Inventive step (Article 56 EPC). The invention of the patent is obvious over the clinical trial document cited as prior art (Phase III TROPIC trial (NHSC). Test to determine inventive step of a second medical use claim same as in (Amgen v. Sanofi-Aventis) Reasonable expectation of success . The question of reasonable expectation of success of the approach disclosed in the clinical trial documents , in terms of assessing an inventive step, is not the same as the question of whether the TROPIC trial will meet its primary endpoint. Pointer for success. The fact that a study is nearing completion per se, is neither a positive nor a negative pointer when assessing expectation of success. The fact that the Tropic trial has been approved and had been in progress for three years without having stopped supports the expectation of success. Six months before the ending of the trial the skilled person had a reasonable expectation for success. The crucial point in the present case is not the authorisation of the trial, it is the course of the trial without incident and the near ending of the trial, which leads to an expectation of success. The skilled person does not need to be certain of success by any means for rendering a solution obvious, it is sufficient if the skilled person would have followed the teaching available in the prior art with a reasonable expectation of success. National decisions and EPO decisions are to be considered by UPC panels , but are not binding. The panel follows the Tribunal Judiciaire de Paris’ reasoning and cannot agree with the conclusions of the Opposition Division and the BoA regarding inventive step. 

IPPT20251210, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, Maxwell v Samsung
Request to extend time limit for filing the next submission is dismissed (Rule 9.3 RoP). Circumstances relied on by Samsung are not considered exceptional. The number of auxiliary requests submitted  (44) are reasonable and manageable. 

IPPT20251210, UPC CFI, LD Dusseldorf, Canon v Katun
Decisions taken at interim conference held online. (Rule. 105.1) Parties ordered to provide English translations of documents. Parties to submit preliminary estimate of legal costs.  (Rule. 104 (k) RoP). Parties to upload documents to the CMS that they wish to refer to for clarification during the oral hearing and that have not yet been submitted to the file.
 

IPPT20251210, UPC CFI, LD Dusseldorf, MAS Maschinen v Altech
Revocation dismissed (Article 65 UPCA). Direct and indirect patent infringement (Article 25 UPCA, Article 26 UPCA). Amendment of claim by motion in brief after interim procedure requesting submission of evidence supporting information to be provided refused (R. 263 RoP) in so far as the claimant argued at the hearing that she had been prompted to submit the new application by the order issued by the reporting judge in the interim proceedings on 10 November 2025, this argument does not exempt her from setting out the requirements under R. 263 RoP. Standing to sue of exclusive licensee (Article 47(2) UPCA). Doubtful whether a finding of a transfer of claims for the past by the patentee to the holder of an exclusive license is necessary as Article 47(2) UPCA states that the holder of an exclusive licence is entitled “to bring actions […] under the same circumstances as the patent proprietor”. In any event, such a transfer has taken place. Claim interpretation – Statement of purpose (Article 69 EPC). The claim that a device is intended “for the continuous filtering of impurities from a plastic melt” constitutes a statement of purpose. The device must therefore be designed in such a way that it is suitable for the continuous filtering of impurities from a plastic melt. Substantiating of grounds for revocation (R. 25 RoP). If the applicant for a declaration of invalidity relies on a lack of inventive step to support their application, it is not sufficient merely to name the documents on which they base their challenge. Rather, it is for him to explain the disclosure content of the relevant documents and, furthermore, to set out specifically why and how a person skilled in the art would combine the individual documents and thus arrive at the claimed solution without exercising an inventive step. The defendant’s submissions do not meet this requirement. Indirect infringement – exhaustion regarding replacement part intended for use in claimant’s systems (Article 26 UPCA, Article 29 UPCA). To be assumed that the replacement or exchange of the part in question is normally to be expected during the product’s useful life and whether the public or consumers can therefore reasonably expect to be able to continue using the purchased product, or to use it on multiple occasions, by means of the replacement part. Indirect patent infringement - recall , removal from distribution and destruction (Article 26 UPCA, Article 64 UPCA). Orders for recall, removal from the channels of commerce and destruction are generally not considered in cases where products are only challenged on the grounds of indirect patent infringement. No statute of limitation for damages sought as of September 2013 (Article 72 UPCA). Defendant interpretation that Article 72 UPCA imposes a time limit on financial claims relating to past events, finds no basis in the wording of the provision. Provisional damages require a sufficient factual basis (R. 119 RoP). Even though R. 119 RoP provides for the possibility of awarding provisional damages on a lump-sum basis, there must be a sufficient factual basis for such an award. Against this background, the claimant’s submissions must demonstrate that his claim is based on a plausible estimate grounded in specific facts. The claimant’s submissions do not meet this requirement.

IPPT20251209, UPC COA, Bhagat v Oerlikon 

 Award of damages (Art. 68 (1) UPCA, Rule 112 RoP). An active stakeholder in the industry is expected to monitor the patent landscape before exhibiting its product on the market and should have reasonable grounds to know about the existence of the Patent and the infringing nature of the attacked embodiment. Failure to do is negligent. Submissions relying on general statements are not sufficient to establish a reputational damage of image. Submitted additional evidence does not support the existence of moral prejudice caused to the respondent. It merely indicates that the appellant was present at a trade fair and explains the functioning of the attacked embodiment.  

IPPT20251209, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Headwater Research v Apple Inc.

Application for leave to withdraw infringement action and counterclaim for revocation action allowed with the consent of both parties. (Rule 265 RoP)

IPPT20251212, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Asus v OPPO 
Claimant (a Taiwanese company) ordered to provide security for costs in the amount of EUR 200,000. (Article 69(4) UPCA, Rule 158.1 RoP). Enforcing a cost decision in Taiwan would be at least unduly burdensome, based on expert opinion. Taiwan is not a member of any international agreement which would govern the enforcement of foreign judgments in Taiwan. Based on the expert opinion, the timeframe to be expected for enforcement in Taiwan can vary from few months up to six years.

IPPT20251212, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Sanofi v Zentiva
Counterclaim for revocation of a secondary use medical claim patent successful, patent revoked in entirety. Infringement action dismissed. (Article 56 EPC,  Article 65 UPCA , Article 25 UPCA)  . Validity - Inventive step (Article 56 EPC). The invention of the patent is obvious over the clinical trial document cited as prior art (Phase III TROPIC trial (NHSC). Test to determine inventive step of a second medical use claim same as in (Amgen v. Sanofi-Aventis) Reasonable expectation of success . The question of reasonable expectation of success of the approach disclosed in the clinical trial documents , in terms of assessing an inventive step, is not the same as the question of whether the TROPIC trial will meet its primary endpoint. Pointer for success. The fact that a study is nearing completion per se, is neither a positive nor a negative pointer when assessing expectation of success. The fact that the Tropic trial has been approved and had been in progress for three years without having stopped supports the expectation of success. Six months before the ending of the trial the skilled person had a reasonable expectation for success. The crucial point in the present case is not the authorisation of the trial, it is the course of the trial without incident and the near ending of the trial, which leads to an expectation of success. The skilled person does not need to be certain of success by any means for rendering a solution obvious, it is sufficient if the skilled person would have followed the teaching available in the prior art with a reasonable expectation of success. National decisions and EPO decisions are to be considered by UPC panels , but are not binding. The panel follows the Tribunal Judiciaire de Paris’ reasoning and cannot agree with the conclusions of the Opposition Division and the BoA regarding inventive step. 
 

IPPT20251205, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Centripetal v Keysight Technologies
Infringement action dismissed due to insufficient substantiation by the Claimant. (Article 25 UPCA, Rule. 171 RoP). Inadmissible counterclaim for revocation (subject to intra-procedural condition). (Rule 25 RoP ). It is upon the claimant to substantiate why it is of an opinion and point to specific facts (Article 25 UPCA, Rule. 171 RoP) and,  if contested by Defendants - to offer adequate proof for such factual statements. In the absence of such statement, the Infringement Action has to be dismissed. Inadmissible counterclaim for revocation subject to intra-procedural condition (finding of infringement) (Rule 25 RoP). It can be left open, whether this situation falls within the ambit of amendment or withdrawal (Rule 263 RoP or Rule 265 RoP.) The aspect of costs is not an interest in itself  (Article 69 UPCA), the costs of the Counterclaim for revocation on Defendants part are not to be borne by Claimant.

IPPT20251205, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Centripatal Limited v Keysight Technologies
No reopening of oral hearing nor call for further evidence warranted (Rule 114 RoP.). It is not a tool to present new infringement allegations after the closure of the oral hearing.

IPPT20251205, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Roche v Menarini
Provisional injunction, seizure, obligation to provide information granted (Article 62 UPCA), interim award of costs (Article 69 UPCA, R. 211.1(d) RoP), no security for enforcement (Article 82(2) UPCA, R. 211.5 RoP). Injunction covering manufacturing may be issued even though the infringing product has so far been manufactured  by a third party outside the Contracting Member States (Article 25 UPCA, Article 62 UPCA). As the holders of the various national parts of the contested patent,the applicants were entitled to assert these jointly in a single action (R. 302 RoP). Claim construction (Article 69 EPC). Interpretation […] has no basis in the claim from a purely linguistic point of view, nor can the skilled person derive any indication of this from the rest of the specification. Not relevant at this point whether the prosecution history must be taken into consideration when interpreting the claims. Product claim. The method by which the protected product is manufactured is  in principle, irrelevant. […].  The situation would be different only if the patent specification provided indications that the method of manufacture is reflected in certain properties of the product, or that the claimed properties can be achieved only by a very specific method. Offering (Article 25 UPCA) must be understood in an economic sense. It should not be based on the legal understanding of a binding contractual offer. An offer therefore need not contain all the details that would be necessary for the immediate conclusion of a contract by mere acceptance of the offer. Sufficient conviction as to validity (R. 211.2 RoP) is lacking if the court considers it highly probable that the patent is not valid. Priority - “same invention” (Article 87 EPC) is to be interpreted as meaning that a claimed invention is to be regarded as the same invention as the invention in an earlier application if the person skilled in the art can derive the subject-matter of the claim directly and unambiguously from the earlier application as a whole, using general technical knowledge […]. The decisive factor is what the person skilled in the art, using their general technical knowledge and viewed objectively, can immediately and unambiguously derive from the entire application as filed at the time of filing, whereby an implicitly disclosed subject-matter, i.e. a subject-matter that arises clearly and unambiguously from what is expressly mentioned, is also to be regarded as part of the content. No impermissible intermediate generalisation: the skilled person will understand the term ‘essentially’ uniformly to mean within the tolerance range, as is apparent from general technical knowledge and does not require any specific disclosure. The skilled person knows that certain differences in the concentration of the analyte may arise, for example, due to the type of measurement (intermittent every 5 minutes or continuous, cf. page 14, lines 10–13). Urgency – no unreasonable delay of two weeks (R. 209.2(b) RoP, R. 211.4 RoP). Temporal urgency required for the ordering of interim measures is only absent if the injured party has pursued their claims with such negligence and delay that it can objectively be assumed that they have no interest in the swift enforcement of their rights, and it therefore does not appear appropriate to order interim measures. Necessity provisional measures (R. 206.2(c) RoP). Applicants face the risk of losing market share and encountering difficulties in establishing themselves in markets they have not yet entered.

IPPT20251204, UPC CFI, LD Brussels, BARCO v YEALINK

Preliminary objection closed, all proceedings and requests made by YEALINK dismissed, based on request made for withdrawal of Preliminary Objection (Rule 19 ROP)

IPPT20251204, UPC CFI, CD Milan, Insulet v EOFLOW
Follows from Order of 22 July 2025 by CFI CD containing enforceable penalty provisions, following an Order on injunctive relief issued by the Court of Appeal’s Order dated 30 April 2025. Order for the payment of penalty of  EUR 150,000 for EoFlow’s non-compliance with obligations. (Article 62 UPCA, Article 82.4 UPCA, Rule 354 RoP) It is highly unlikely that the parties altered their usual modus operandi as shipment/payment activity corresponds to what was already presented during the injunction phase. It is likely that Menarini and EOFLOW simply continued their previous import-export business despite the injunction.  The causal link between behaviour and event must be measured on the principle of ‘more likely than not’.  UPC CFI CD Milan has jurisdiction for the determination of penalty payments for enforcement under Rule 354 RoP. A penalty order issued under Art. 82.4 UPCA, or a preliminary injunction issued under Art. 62 UPCA, may be enforced by the UPC itself. Preliminary injunctions are also court orders within the meaning of Article 82 UPCA. Determination of penalty […] lies with the competence of the relevant division of the UPC at first instance. This jurisdiction extends to the enforcement of decisions issued by the Court of Appeal at second instance.  The order of 22 July by the CD Milan cannot be applied retrospectively to the COA decision of 30 April. Penalty assessed solely on the basis of order of 30 April. Only judgments that are purely interpretative of (already) established legal provisions may be applied retroactively. The detailed prohibitions set out in CD Milan’s decision, namely the penalties applicable to each item imported in violation of the order, cannot be applied retrospectively to the CoA’s order, even by way of interpretation, since the party affected by the injunction is bound solely ratione temporis by the order in force at that very moment and by the terms as specified therein. The CoA’s order dated 30 April 2025 is sufficiently clear and enforceable under R. 354 RoP. The imposed “periodic penalty payments of up to EUR 250,000 for each individual infringement satisfy the requirements of R. 354.3 RoP by clearly identifying both (i) the triggering event -  the circumstance upon which a specified penalty sum may be forfeited, and  (ii) the amount of the penalty which may be forfeited.  Accordingly, there is no lacuna that would require the Court of Appeal to issue any, more precise, further penalty order. The Court interprets the prescription in the order as referring to the type of violation established, i.e. the import or export of infringing goods, rather than to each individual product that was illegally exported. An interpretation applying a penalty of €250,000 for each individual act of importation or trade would be completely out of step with the market for the product and the market size of the parties involved.  If there is any uncertainty regarding the interpretation of the prescription of the CoA, the construction that is most favourable to the infringer must be adopted (in dubio pro reo). The purpose of R. 354.4 RoP is to enable the effective enforcement of injunctions. It ensures that the Court retains the flexibility to tailor penalties to the seriousness, duration and wilfulness of the infringement. The amount of penalty set by the Court of Appeal is not  merely indicative. Were that interpretation correct, the Court of Appeal would have issued an order devoid of practical effect and therefore unenforceable, which would run counter to the very purpose of the order issued.

 
IPPT20251204, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Aesculap v Shanghai Boijn Medical Instrument
Date of oral hearing set for 17 June 2026. (Rule 28 RoP) . Shanghai Bojin Electric Instrument & Device Co added as a party.  (Rule 305 1(a) RoP). Court proposes alternate course of action. Claimant withdraw objections on re-establishment of rights. (Rule 320 RoP). Defendants 1 and 3 withdraw objections to the amendment of the claim to include the “Bojin rose cutter” to the proceedings (Rule 263 (1) RoP). 

IPPT20251204, UPC CFI, LD Brussels, CooperSurgical v European Distribution Center Motiva 
Withdrawal of infringement action allowed (Rule 265 RoP).Costs incurred by the Defendants cannot be considered “exceptional” within the meaning of Art. 69(2) UPCA. The Defendants have acted as any cautious and reasonable defendant would have acted. Given the EPO procedural background, it was reasonable for the Defendants to assume that the Applicant would appeal the EPO 's decision if it confirmed its Preliminary Opinion. The Applicant acted with "undue delay" in submitting the Application for Withdrawal two weeks after the EPO confirmed its Preliminary Opinion, knowing that this would be only two weeks before the Statement of Defence and Counterclaim for Revocation had to be submitted. Applicant to bear all costs of proceedings as "unsuccessful party". (Article 69(1) UPCA). Applicant is the “unsuccessful party”, not based on an assessment of arguments developed by the “successful party”, but merely on the withdrawal of the infringement action. ”Reasonable and proportionate” assessment of costs made from an ex ante perspective. (Rule. 152.1 RoP)  elements to be taken into consideration in this case are the value in dispute together with the ceiling, the significance of the case, the moment of withdrawal in the procedural agenda and the difficulty and complexity of the relevant legal and factual issues. Having the “costs” as such as an “ex ante” starting point with regard to the reasonability and proportionality safeguard the access to the UPC. Requested representation costs for Defendants 1-2 not reasonable and proportionate; an amount of €100.000,00 to be reasonable and proportionate. (Article 69 UPCA). Any reasonable defendant would timely prepare its Statement of Defence together with its Counterclaim for Revocation pending EPO proceedings and also further process these documents. The Action was withdrawn before the actual due date of the Statement of Defence and the Counterclaim for Revocation. Since the deadline to submit was due in 2 weeks, some work was still to be expected to be executed to fine-tune the SoD and Counterclaim for Revocation.

IPPT20251202, UPC COA, Windhager v Bellissa HAAS
Application for suspensive effect of appeal rejected. (Article 74 UPCA , Rule 223 RoP). No obvious inaccuracy in the contested decision, obvious errors of law not proven .Windhager's concern over reputational harm from the recall, removal from distribution channels, and  destruction of its goods does not outweigh Belissa's interest in enforcing its patent. 

IPPT20251201, UPC CoA, Innovative Sonic v Oppo

Appeal to change the language back to German dismissed. (Article 49(5) UPCA, R. 323.3 RoP.) A party must be able to fully understand what is submitted by a representative on its behalf and what is submitted by the other party. It follows that, if the language of the proceedings is not the language of a party, this is not compensated by the fact that its representative is proficient in the language of the proceedings. The party itself is then still dependent on translations of the statements and evidence lodged on either side. It cannot be accepted that machine translations, even if not always accurate, are sufficient for this purpose. The Court of Appeal has consulted the panel of the Local Division by way of analogy with R. 323.3 RoP. If there has already been a change in the language of the proceedings at an early stage, it is prudent not to change the language again.

IPPT20251201, UPC CFI, CD Munich, TCL EUROPE SAS v Corning Incorporated
Decisions taken at Interim Conference ( Rule 105.5 RoP.) Deadline imposed on defendant to file responses and provide a table of amendments. Both parties allowed time to submit further briefs to address the legal implications in light of recent CoA decisions and not to introduce new facts or technical arguments.