2025 UPC July

IPPT20250731, UPC CFI, RD Nordic-Baltic, Texport v Sioen
Relevance of the determination of the applicable law (Article 24 UPCA). W. Standing of TEXPORT as (unregistered) exclusive licensee (Article 47.2 UPCA). The Court notes that TEXPORT has submitted a document dated 9 January 2024, i.e. three days before its Statement of Claim was filed, where the patent proprietor – who also is managing director/CEO of TEXPORT – confirms that TEXPORT is the exclusive licensee of the Patent and that TEXPORT is entitled to bring actions before any Court, especially the UPC, under the same circumstances as him, the patent proprietor. Claim construction (Article 69 EPC). Claim element (layer 5) “the knitted material consists of a waffle structure” : . Direct literal infringement (Article 25 UPCA). Participation in a public tender in Portugal constitutes a patent infringement (offering) in (at least) Portugal, even though SIOEN is based in Belgium and despite that the offer was not accepted. It is also obvious that the offer in question originated from SIOEN, or at least was submitted by the local distributor only after SIOEN had agreed to manufacture and deliver the products in question if the tender was won. Hence, SIOEN has also infringed the patent in this regard. Injunction covering all Contracting Member States except Romania and Malta (Article 34 UPCA). . Liability for damages of (unregistered) exclusive licensee (Article 68 UPCA). Order to communicate information (Article 67 UPCA, R. 191 RoP). The claimant also has a right to information needed to verify the information and to calculate the damage. No order to publish decision on SIOEN’s website (Article 80 UPCA). Corrective measures – recall and destruction (Article 64 UPCA). Requests do not include consumers or firefighters/end-users. Proportionate recurring penalty of € 1.000 for each day of delay (Article 63.2 UPCA, Article 82 UPCA).

IPPT20250731, UPC CFI, LD Paris, Sun Patent Trust v Vivo Mobile
No need to decide on public access in the absence of any request (R. 262.2 RoP). Confidentiality club established (R. 262A RoP). Second request of 13 June 2025 not considered late since it is justified that the claimant received this information from its licensees after the date on which it filed its action before this Division. In addition, the second confidentiality request of 13 June 2025 does not constitute a change in procedural strategy that would be too burdensome for the defendants, since the latter had not yet provided their comments on the confidentiality application at the time of the second request. Rule  262A RoP protection regime established even though there is an NDA between the parties. in accordance with Rule 262A RoP, at least one natural person from each of the VIVO Defendants should be included in the confidentiality club. The external experts who should have access to the confidential information must be named for accountability reasons.

IPPT20250730, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Avago v Tesla
Access to the register granted to Renault (R. 262 RoP). Access to the pleadings and evidence submitted to the court by the parties in the proceedings and recorded by the registry, in their redacted, blacked-out or non-confidential versions, as the case may be.

IPPT20250730, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Nutricia v Nestlé
Withdrawal of infringement action and counterclaim for revocation by party consent (R. 265 RoP). The amount of the infringement action is set at € 250,000. The amount of the counterclaim for revocation is set at € 500,000.  (R. 370.6 RoP)

IPPT20250730, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Headwater Research v Samsung Electronics
Patent revoked to the extent of claim 1 because of added matter (Article 65 UPCA). Added matter (Article 138(1)(c) EPC, Article 76 EPC, Article 123(2) EPC). The criterion to determine whether a divisional application extends beyond the content of the parent application is the same as the one applied to determine whether an application contains added subject-matter with respect to the application as originally filed. When the Court has to decide on the merits, as it is case in the present instance, the standard to be used for assessing the presence of added subject-matter is the criterion of “beyond (reasonable) doubt”. Features 1.5.1 and 1.5.3.1 (resp. feature 1.5.3.2) are not disclosed in the earlier application as originally filed because, according to this application, the processor determines whether a network service usage activity is running in the background (resp. foreground), instead of whether a (first) device application is running in the background (resp. foreground), as claimed. The Court also finds that there is no API blocking access (features 1.5.2, 1.5.3) disclosed based on the determination that the application is running in the background. No new line of arguments allowed at oral hearing (R. 9.2 RoP). As the issue has been raised from the outset and the new argument is based on completely different passages of a lengthy document, neither the Court nor the other party may be forced to deal with it from scratch. Deciding otherwise would undermine the concept of front-loaded procedure established by the Rules of Procedure. Presumption of the register that Claimant is the person entitled to be registered as proprietor of European patent not rebutted by presentation of alleged co-ownership (R. 8.5(c) RoP) given limitation periods under German and French law.

IPPT20250730, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Aesculap v Shanghai International
Recurring penalty of up to € 30.000 on non-proper fulfilment of the obligation to provide information pursuant to order to communicate information of 10 July 2025 (R. 354.3 RoP; Article 67 UPCA). No further deadline required as the deadline was has already been set by the plaintiff (R. 118.8 RoP). Application is successful insofar as the applicant additionally seeks the threat of penalty payments. Setting a maximum limit per day gives the local chamber the necessary flexibility to also take into account the respondent's conduct in the event of an infringement and, on that basis, to be able to set an appropriate penalty payment in accordance with R. 354(4) RoP.

IPPT20250729, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Syngenta v Sumi Agro
Stay of proceedings by request of all parties (R. 295(d) RoP). 

IPPT20250729, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Jinko v Longi
Procedural order regarding interim conference, oral hearing, handling of infringement and counterclaim for revocation at a later stage (R. 108 RoP).

IPPT20250729, UPC CFI, LD Milan, Oerlikon v Bhagat
Rectification rejected (R. 353 RoP). It must therefore be concluded that there is no material error in the decision on costs with regard to the quantification of the final sum paid to Oerlikon in the amount of €80,000.00, while the phrase “to this must be added €20,000.00 for the case on the merits” is a mere typographical error that did not affect the reasoning and whose failure to be taken into account in the final calculation does not constitute a material error to be amended here. 

IPPT20250729, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Mailikie Innovations v Discord
Infringement action not manifestly bound to fail (R. 361 RoP) nor absolute bar to proceeding with infringement action (R. 362 RoP). German law requirements (Article 25 GPA) regarding having registered a domestic representative for the German national part of the patent-in-suit with the competent German Patent and Trademark Office (GPTO) or a power of attorney that fulfils the requirements of said provision is a German law procedural requirement but not substantive law.

IPPT20250729, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Maxeon Solar v Aiko Energy
Claimant to provide security for legal costs and other expenses to the Defendants 3. and 5. to 8. in the amount of EUR 100,000 (R. 158 RoP). Request not late filed. Rule 158.1 RoP clearly states that security for costs may be requested at any time during the proceedings. Waiting for the Claimant's annual financial results and the Court's ruling [of 14 April 2025] on the request for security for costs filed by Defendants 1., 2. and 4. cannot be considered an abuse of rights or bad faith conduct intended to harm the Claimant.

IPPT20250728, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Papst Licensing v Roborock
Application for extension of time limits granted with plaintiff's consent and agreement that service on the other two parties would be accepted (R. 19 RoP, R. 23 RoP, R. 25 RoP)

IPPT20250728, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, DDP v Greenchemicals
Withdrawal of the application for preliminary measures with the consent of the Defendant (R. 206 RoP, R. 265 RoP)

IPPT20250728, UPC CFI, CD Paris, Essetre Holding
Revocation rejected, patent maintained in amended form (Article 65 UPCA). Claim construction: patent’s own lexicon (Article 69 EPC). The Court considers that according to the ordinary meaning of the wording in common language as well as in the context of the description and the drawings of the patent, the term “a working surface” is to be interpreted as meaning “one working surface”. In this regard it is worth noting that the term “working surface” does not imply that the surface is planar but can also have other shapes including a folded shape. No added subject-matter (Article 138(1)(c) EPC). Para. [0041] provides one example, which is shown in figs. 7, 8 and 9, and according to paras. [0049] and [0050] variants and technically equivalent elements to this example may be used. Feature (1.6.3) has a basis in para. [0041] which discloses that “Subsequently, or at the same time as the lateral retraction, the frames 17 and 18 rotate, pushed by the linear actuators 43 and 44, as in Figure 9, in order to face each other as in Figure 10”. Novelty standard (Article 54(1) EPC). An invention is to be considered part of the state of the art when it is found clearly integrally, directly and unambiguously in one single piece of prior art and it is identical in its constitutive elements, in the same form, with the same arrangement and the same features. Assessment of inventive step (Article 56 EPC). It is necessary to determine whether, given the state of the art, a person skilled in the art would have obtained the technical solution claimed by the patent using their technical knowledge and carrying out simple operations. Inventive step is defined in terms of the specific problem encountered by the person skilled in the art. It is first necessary to determine one or more teachings in the prior art that would have been of interest to a person skilled in the art who, at the priority date of the patent in suit, was seeking to develop an invention or process similar to that disclosed in the prior art. Then, it must be assessed whether it would have been obvious for the skilled person to arrive at the claimed solution of the underlying technical problem on the basis of a realistic disclosure of the selected prior art.

IPPT20250727, UPC CFI, CD Paris, Seoul Viosys v Laser Components
Reimbursement for costs totaling €  11,200. Cost decision may follow a decision or an order deciding a Preliminary objection (R. 150 RoP, R. 151 RoP, R. 20 RoP) closing the proceeding so that no further actions will have to be taken in this proceeding. While Rules 150 and 151 RoP speak of a “decision” and not of a “procedural order”, the issue of whether or not a separate cost decision can be issued with regard to a preliminary objection is to be decided considering material criteria. An application for a separate cost decision regarding a preliminary objection is admissible if the proceeding is closed so that no further actions will have to be taken in this proceeding. Generally, this will be the case when a decision or an order ends the proceeding in the first instance. Value of the action set at € 500.000;  the same value set for the revocation proceedings by the Paris Local Division and set for the infringement action, after hearing the parties in the interim conference, the value was set at EUR 500,000.. Non recoverable costs of legal expert (€ 6,720) on interpretation of Article 33(4) UPCA. The team of representatives would have been able to consider the issues raised by the revocation action, and in particular, the issue of the interpretation of Article 33 UPCA, and on that basis prepare adequately and appropriately file their submissions. 

IPPT20250725, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Centripal v Palo Alto
No breach of inspection order. The order of the CoA […] can only be construed so as to limit the inspection to the system actually being present at the premises of the order. (Art. 60 (3) UPCA, R. 199 RoP, R. 192.2(b) RoP). Defendant was under no obligation to increase the access rights of a mere sales person working at the premises detailed in the order to a level which would allow him to have access to the encrypted network security solution Claimant wished to monitor in real-time, if such increase of rights of the employee concerned is not necessary to have him carry out his duties required in his particular position as submitted by Defendant.

IPPT20250725, UPC CFI, LD Dusseldorf, Trumpf v IPG
No bifurcation (Article 33(3)(a) UPCA). Such joint hearing of the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation appears sensible for reasons of efficiency alone. It is also advantageous in terms of content, as it allows both the legal status and the infringement issue to be decided on the basis of a uniform interpretation by the same panel.

IPPT20250725, UPC CFI, LD Brussels, OrthoApnea
Cost decision for an amount of € 41.656,64. (Article 69 UPCA, R. 156.1 RoP). Late filed request to increase the recoverable costs ceiling. Rule 104(j) RoP  and the Ceilings Decision stipulate that a request for an increase must be assessed no later than the closing of the interim conference. May not apply to the defendant if they are only informed of the actual representation costs claimed by the claimant during the course of the cost proceedings. Costs claimed are ‘facts’, for which – if disputed – the claimant needs to provide evidence (Article 54 UPCA, R. 172.1 RoP). Same standard of proof. If the ‘facts’ (‘costs’) are disputed by the defendant and if the claimant has evidence to support the ‘facts’ (‘costs’) presented, the claimant is obliged to provide such evidence. Contrary to what R 156.1 RoP suggests, such evidence does not only have to be submitted if the Court requests it. R. 156.1. RoP merely states that the Judge-Rapporteur has the power (‘may’) to have written evidence submitted to him and does not relieve the claimant of his burden of proof as set out in Article 54 UPCA and R. 172.1. RoP. The Court may apply the ceiling (as a safety net) with regard to recoverable representation costs if the circumstances of the case justify this. Translation costs (including translations made in the light of the defence and communication between clients and their legal representatives (‘representatives’) (or translations concerning decisions taken in the language of the proceedings) as well as the travel and accommodation costs of the legal representatives (‘representatives’) fall under representation costs. R. 152.1. RoP should be interpreted broadly in this sense.

IPPT20250724, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Cilag v Rivolution
Private interpreters are permitted to attend the oral hearing in Overflow Room 220b and to provide their interpreting services from there  (R. 109.4RoP). 

IPPT20250724, UPC CoA, Late filed application representative
Late filed application to be registered as representative on the basis of “other qualifications” under Rule 12.1(a) EPLC Rules after the expiry of the one year transition period denied (Article 48(2) UPCA). A re-establishment of rights under R. 320 RoP is not possible because the RoP are not applicable to the EPLC Rules Even if the RoP would be applicable, the deadline from R. 12.1 EPLC Rules is not a deadline that could be subject to a re-establishment of right since the wording refers to the fact that certain courses and certificates “shall … be deemed as appropriate” which implies that this is not a procedural deadline but a material provision.

IPPT20250724, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, ZTE v Samsung
Value in dispute for FRAND counterclaim higher than value in dispute of infringement action (R. 370 RoP). A FRAND counterclaim is not a mere defence to the infringement action and its value in dispute therefore is not limited to the value in dispute of the infringement action. Since the Defendant 1, by filing a FRAND counterclaim that is not limited to the patent-in-suit, is seeking a licence agreement that goes beyond the patent-in-suit and that corresponds to its understanding of FRAND, it is not disadvantaged by having to pay fees that exceed the fees for the infringement action.

IPPT20250724, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Truma v CAN
Withdrawal of action by party consent  (R. 265 RoP)

IPPT20250724, UPC CoA, OTEC v Steros
Further written pleadings allowed in appeal of granted PI (R.36 RoP) with respect to the new experiment performed by STEROS regarding the alleged embodiment of the patent in dispute and the argumentation relating to the same under para. 50 to 65 of the Statement of Response of 15 July 2025. Under R. 36 RoP it is reasonable, in the context of an appeal on provisional measures, to grant appellant a time limit of no more than two weeks to lodge the further written pleading
 

IPPT20250724, UPC CoA, Hanshow v Vusion
IPPT20250724, UPC CoA, HP v Lama
Withdrawal of appeal by party consent (R. 265 RoP)

IPPT20250723, UPC CoA, Visibly v Easee
Withdrawal of appeal by party consent (R. 265 RoP). A stay of proceedings does not prevent the possibility of withdrawal (R. 311 RoP)

IPPT20250723, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Qiagen v bioMérieux
Time period for lodging Reply to the Statement of defence and Defence to the counterclaim extended  because of unavailability of redacted versions (R. 9.3 RoP, R. 29(a) RoP)

IPPT20250723, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Fujifilm v Kodak

€ 100.000+ penalty imposed upon Defendants (Article 82 UPCA, R. 354 RoP) to punish their shortcomings and disobedience with the operative part of the decision of the UPC Claimant seeks to enforce and to coerce Defendants to comply with what had been ordered by the Court. The penalty regime imposed is three-pronged. For the past period, a lump sum penalty payment (€ 100.000) is being imposed. In a next step, moderate daily penalty payments (€ 2.500 per day) are being imposed and a time period is set to catch up on what should already have been provided. In a further step drastic penalty payments (€ 10.000 per day) are being imposed, in case Defendants still are not prepared to comply with the decisions and orders of the UPC. No prior penalty warning required since the court did not put enforcement of the decision under further preconditions, it had been clear from the date of service, i.e. 2 April 2025 of the decision that compliance is mandatory and the only remaining step is a notification of the Claimant according to R. 118.8 RoP. No further warning was necessary. Indeed neither R. 354.3 or .4 RoP explicitly call for a warning. The language of R. 354.3 RoP does not call for a warning at least when – as it had been the case here – the decision on the merits unambiguously states that the imposition of penalties may be the court’s reaction to disobedience with the operative part of the judgement. One week deadline for recall and removal from channels of commerce seems reasonable (Article 62 UPCA)

IPPT20250722, UPC CFI, LD Paris, Tiru v Maguin
Hearing together of two parallel actions based on the same patent concerning the same alleged infringing product (R. 302 RoP) in view of the very similar arguments put forward in defence, and in view of the parallel evidence preservation measures that were carried out and which were the subject of almost identical criticism in defence, it is good administrative practice to examine the two cases together and, to that end, to order their joinder. Bifurcation of the counterclaims for invalidity for reasons of economy and efficiency to the Central Division, which was first seized of the application for revocation of the patent (Article 33(3) (b) UPCA). It is appropriate to order the bifurcation of the counterclaims for patent invalidity to the Central Division. This takes into account the fact that the Central Division was first seized of the application for revocation of the patent and should therefore deliver its decision more quickly, and that the arguments on the validity of the patent developed by VEOLIA before the Central Division are virtually identical to those developed in the counterclaims before this local division by VALINEA and MAGUIN. No stay of infringement action granted pending the outcome of the parallel action before the Central Division (R. 295(m) RoP) to avoid slowing down the infringement proceedings, which is in the interest of the claimant, but also in the interest of the defendants, as the duration of this dispute inevitably has an economic impact, particularly for companies in the VEOLIA group (such as VALINEA), a direct competitor of PAPREC, to which TIRU belongs, in the waste treatment by incineration market.
 

IPPT20250722, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Nanoval v ALD Vacuum Technologies
Time period for starting proceedings on the merits following an order to preserve evidence (R. 198.1 RoP). Order of 18 March 2025 changing the start of the time period from 28 February 2025 to the date  on which the expert report will be made available has become final as the order of the judge rapporteur has not been submitted for panel review (R. 333 RoP). The length of the time limit of R. 198.1 RoP cannot be extended (R. 9.4 RoP) but the starting date of the time limit is at the discretion of the Court. This discretion also includes a subsequent change  of the starting date.

IPPT20250722, UPC CoA, Philips v Belkin
Withdrawal of application for costs allowed without hearing Belkin (R. 265 RoP). Even without the withdrawal, no decision on the merits would have been issued, as the Court of First Instance has jurisdiction for applications for the determination of costs. No decision on costs is required here. As a rule, even the successful party bears the costs of the cost assessment proceedings (R. 150 RoP).

IPPT20250722, UPC CFI, CD Milan, Eoflow v Insulet
Direct infringement (Article 25 UPCA), revocation action dismissed by default (Article 65 UPCA, R. 355 RoP). Decision by default cannot be issued against the defendant based solely on a procedural violation or failure to defend (R. 355 RoP). Before issuing a decision by default against a defendant based on a procedural violation or failure to defend, the Court must verify that the case file contains sufficient, precise and consistent evidence to enable the judgment to be issued. The terms of the patent must be interpreted according to their principal functional meaning, bearing in mind the language used in the patent itself (patent’s own lexicon) (Article 69 EPC). When interpreting a patent claim, the person skilled in the art does not apply a philological understanding, but determines the technical meaning of the terms used with the aid of the description and the drawings. From the function of the individual features in the context of the patent claim as a whole, it must be deduced which technical function these features have individually and as a whole. The patent description may represent a patent’s own lexicon. The cap on costs of Article 1(3) of the decision of the Administrative Committee of 24 March 2023 applies in each instance of the court proceedings, regardless of the number of parties or patents involved. (Article 69 UPCA, R. 158 RoP). Consequently, when considering patent infringement, where both an infringing manufacturer and an infringing distributor are involved in two separate but parallel proceedings concerning the same patent and the same act of infringement, a unitary approach is warranted. The cap established in Article 1(3) would be otherwise violated. 

IPPT20250721, UPC CFI, RD Nordic Baltic, Edwards v Meril
Patent amended (Article 65 UPCA), Direct infringement (Article 25 UPCA). Competence in relation to Meril Germany (Article 33.1(a) and (b) UPCA). On the Meril website, Meril Germany is described as Meril’s European Headquarters and the brochure specifies inter alia that Meril Germany can provide information on the availability of the Navigator in Europe. Claim construction (Article 69 EPC). The importance of the patent claims means, inter alia, that a narrowing interpretation of the claims which deviates from the broader general understanding of the terms used therein by the person skilled in the art, can only be permitted in exceptional cases. Added subject matter (Article 138(1)(c) EPC). Court is not convinced that there is an inextricable link between the indicia specified in claim 2 and the slot, or with any other unspecified features: omitting those features (e.g. a slot) does not represent an unallowable intermediate generalization. Added subject matter in independent claim 1 as well as dependent claims 7, 9, 10 and 10. Insufficient disclosure claim 9 (Article 83 EPC). It is not clear to the person skilled in the art how Fig. 36 of EP 722 need to be modified to meet the requirements of claim 9. Inventive step (Article 56 EPC). Problem-solution-approach: The parties have used the PSA as the basis when they have discussed inventive step and the Court sees no reason to make its assessment based on a different test. Hence, the PSA will be applied. 22 auxiliary requests reasonable (R. 30 RoP). Edwards explained that auxiliary request 11 and 1’ to 10’ had been submitted in order to streamline the proceedings and to simplify the Court’s work in case there would be an issue in one of the dependent claims. Article 65(3) UPCA applies to limitations of the patent as granted ut not to applications to amend the patent. Joint liability Meril India and Meril Germany (Article 68 UPCA). Acted in a close and interdependent commercial relationship, based on their structure as members of a group of companies, they have a joint liability for their infringing acts in the participating member states of the UPCA. Each of the defendants to pay € 500.000 as provisional damages. When the Courts finds that a patent has been infringement, a request for an injunction should normally be granted (Article 63(1) UPCA). No overriding public interest; no reason to refrain from issuing an injunction in this case (not even in return for a payment in lieu), or to exclude certain sizes or grant a grace period. 

IPPT20250721, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Lenovo v Asustek
Order following interim conference on FRAND  (R. 105.5 RoP).regarding submitting arguments by Asus and response by Lenovo until 1 September 2025 and proposals by the parties for topics for interim hearing of 18 September 2025.

IPPT20250721, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Malikie Innovations v Discord
Extension of time period for the Defence to Counterclaim for revocation rejected (R. 29 RoP). The time period does not commence before the claimant had been able to take note of the CCR in substance.

IPPT20250721, UPC CFI, CD Paris, Sibio v Abbott
Revocation dismissed, maintained as granted (Article 65 UPCA). Inadmissible newly raised arguments for lack of novelty of the independent claims and added subject-matter in the dependent claims (R. 44 RoP, R. 263 RoP). The newly raised arguments do not follow the defence and there are no objective obstacles to their earlier presentation. Indicating in general terms that D2 will be used to challenge the patent's novelty or inventive step without providing a detailed analysis of the document with respect to novelty is insufficient to establish that this document is being used to challenge the patent's novelty. Although the dependent claims are subordinated to the independent claims, the grounds for their revocation must be stated at the outset, as the latter form part of the overall challenge to the patent in its entirety. Auxiliary requests included in Defence to revocation admissible (R. 30 RoP) even though the official electronic form (R. 4 RoP) was not used. No stay of revocation action when a counterclaim for revocation in infringement action is filed after the oral hearing in the revocation action (R. 75.3 RoP). Common general knowledge (‘CGK’) is subject to evidence and the burden lies with the party invoking it (Article 54 UPCA). No added matter (Article 138(1)(c) EPC). Strict compliance with the requirements of the gold standard in the context of the appraisal of added matter is of paramount importance for legal certainty. A patent proprietor should not be allowed to benefit from an unwarranted advantage by adding subject-matter not directly and unambiguously disclosed in the (earlier) application as filed, as third parties could then be confronted with claims extending beyond what they could legitimately expect when reviewing the original application.When a plurality of features taken from unrelated embodiments or from various lists of features in an original disclosure need to be combined to arrive at a claimed subject-matter, there may be added matter, in the absence of a clear pointer to the specific combination in the original disclosure. A prerequisite for any finding of added matter is that new technical information is presented to the skilled person. Under the ‘EPC’ and the ‘UPCA’, there is no requirement for literal support in the earlier application as filed, […] if the wording has been slightly modified, [but] the technical meaning remains the same. Added matter and intermediate generalisation. Intermediate generalisation is justified only in the absence of any clearly recognisable functional or structural relationship among the (imported and omitted) features of the specific combination. There is a so-called intermediate generalisation when a claimed subject-matter is obtained by importing one or more features from a certain embodiment in the original disclosure into a claim, while omitting one or more other features of this embodiment which were presented in combination with the imported feature(s) in the disclosure of this embodiment. An intermediate generalisation can be allowable or unallowable – in view of the prohibition of added matter – depending on the circumstances of the case. A mere allegation that there is a functional or structural relationship is not enough for the Court to conclude that there is an unallowable intermediate generalisation. On the contrary, a concrete explanation of an alleged functional or structural relationship, based on the content of the original disclosure, would be necessary. Inventive step (Article 56 EPC). An assessment based on two different starting points is appropriate. No incentive or pointer in prior art for dramatic design change.
 
 

IPPT20250718, UPC CFI, RD Nordic Baltic, Edwards v Meril
Confirmation of Settlement Agreement, confidentiality provisions (R. 365.1 RoP)

IPPT20250718, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Fujifilm v Kodak - II

Infringement action dismissed for lack of patentability of UK part of European bundle patent (Article 25 UPCA, Article 65 UPCA). Reference is made to the decision of 2 April 2025. Infringement action exclusively governed by procedural law of the forum, in accordance with fundamental principles of international procedural law. Cross border jurisdiction UPC (Article 4 Brussels I Regulation, Article 24(4) Brussels I Regulation). UPC as court of the domicile of defendant does have jurisdiction to rule on an infringement action based on a patent granted or validated in a NON-EU member state even if the invalidity of this patent is raised as a defence. Inter partes effect only of validity findings: there is no jurisdiction for a defence which seeks to affect the existence or content of that patent in that third state, or to cause its national register to be amended

IPPT20250718, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Fujifilm v Kodak - I

Direct and indirect infringement in the UK by German defendants (Article 25 UPCA, Article 26 UPCA). Infringement action exclusively governed by procedural law of the forum, in accordance with fundamental principles of international procedural law. Cross border jurisdiction UPC (Article 4 Brussels I Regulation, Article 24(4) Brussels I Regulation). UPC as court of the domicile of defendant does have jurisdiction to rule on an infringement action based on a patent granted or validated in a NON-EU member state even if the invalidity of this patent is raised as a defence. Inter partes effect only of validity findings: there is no jurisdiction for a defence which seeks to affect the existence or content of that patent in that third state, or to cause its national register to be amended (cf. ECJ, judgement of 25 February 2025, C-399/22, para. 74 et seq.). Infringement in the UK: insufficient facts that there at least is an imminent danger that the Defendants will infringe upon the UK bundle patent by relocating the production site from Germany to the UK. Uncontested commercialization of Sonora-XTRA 3 plates in the UK. The acts of offering, placing on the market, using or storing it for those purposes had not been contested by Defendants with a sufficient level of substantiation (see infra). No UK prior use rights (Article 28 UPCA), at least Defendants did not submit sufficient facts so as to establish that they had also made the final business decision within the Kodak Group to commercialize printing plates with the features of the claimed invention before the relevant priority date. No time period in advance for communicating information (Article 67 UPCA) On the instant facts, considering the complexity, the panel regards it as not feasible to set an appropriate time period in advance in the individual case at hand. Whether the Defendants will have provided the required information in due time, depends on the circumstances and will be assessed in the enforcement proceedings, if necessary. Recall and definitive removal from the channels of commerce are two separate measures (Article 64(2)(b) and (d) UPCA).

IPPT20250718, UPC CFI, CD Milan, bioMérieux v Labrador Diagnostics
Order following interim conference in revocation action (R. 105.5 RoP). bioMérieux to inform  the Court: which claims of the patent no longer to maintain; which invalidity attacks are the most promising, which attacks the discussion during the OH will then focus on and which attacks (starting from those attacks) the Court’s preparation for the OH will also mainly focus on, and identify which invalidity attacks (added matter, novelty and inventive step, and for the last one in which combination of prior art documents) against which requests she would like to prioritise; whether there are (any material) differences between the validity attacks in the Claim for revocation case (48305/2024) on the one hand and the Counterclaim for revocation (in case 54050/2024) on the other hand. Labrador to file: the main request and the Auxiliary Requests renumbered in both cases.

IPPT20250717, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Sanofi v Accord Healthcare
Order following interim conference (R. 105.5 RoP). Following a decision to uphold the patent by EPO BoA and a French first instance decision invalidating the French part or the European patent.

IPPT20250717, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Fujifilm v Kodak

Confidentiality club regime request for information to be provided in enforcement proceedings rejected (R. 262A RoP). First, it would have been for the defendants to already submit in the main proceedings that any information they would have to render in case of the court finding for infringement should be subject to special confidentiality provisions to be included in the main decision. Second, the court already clarified in its main decision as cited supra that the information to be rendered “must not be used for any other purpose than the purposes mentioned above”. This was to emphasize that it is an imminent characteristic of the information rendered in the course of enforcement proceedings, which are based on the enforceable operative part of a court decision, that the information may only be used in that context and e.g. not to engage in behaviour which were counter to antitrust law. Therefore alone, no further clarifications as applied for by Defendants are necessary. Third, a further protection may be possible under special circumstances “in case of an indication of a specific risk of misuse”. Defendants failed to submit any such facts. Defendants err, that the information being rendered in the course of enforcement proceedings may only be used until the termination of proceedings or until five years after receipt of such information (pointing to Art. 72 UPCA.). The decision is enforceable in various jurisdictions for a much longer time than five years.

IPPT20250717, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Faro v PMT
Application to postpone the date of the oral hearing for interim measures not granted (R. 210 RoP, R. 9 RoP). Due to the urgent nature of the hearing of an application for interim measures, a postponement can only be considered in very special circumstances. This does not automatically include the absence of the respondent's legal and patent attorney representatives due to holidays. In particular, it is generally reasonable to expect a legal representative to either interrupt their holiday in order to attend such oral proceedings or to take their holiday at a later date, or to send an instructed representative to the oral proceedings.

IPPT20250716, UPC CFI, LD Munich, 10x Genomics v Bruker
Withdrawal of infringement action and counterclaim for revocation pursuant to settlement (R. 265.1 RoP). Only 40% instead of 60% reimbursement of Court fees (€ 30.400 and € 8.000, respectively) due to the parties having conducted the proceedings outstanding intensively. (R. 370.9(e) RoP). Application for compensation for injury caused by provisional measures requires payment of court fees (R. 213.2 RoP). The legal basis for this fees are Rules 370.2(e), 132 RoP ("Fee for the Application for the determination of damages") RoP. The expression "damages" used in Rule 132 RoP (Chapter 4: Procedure for the determination of damages and compensation) shall be deemed to include compensation according to Rule 213.2 ROP. This is explicitly stated in Rule 125 RoP (sentences 2 and 3). Defendants are reminded that the UPC is not based on the principle of free proceedings, but on the idea that the party who initiates proceedings and thus an activity of the Court by filing a statement of claim or an application must pay fees (Article 36(3) UPCA, Article 70 UPCA). 60% of the court fees (€ 151.800) will be reimbursed as action is withdrawn before closure of the written procedure (R. 370.9(b)(i) RoP) 

IPPT20250716, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Fingon v Samsung
Time periods for filing the rejoinder in the infringement proceedings and the reply in the counterclaim for revocation proceedings are extended (R. 9.3 RoP). Special circumstances justifying an extension: plausible that the Defendants need information from the third party developer about said functionalities and the support of a private expert, and that they need time, after having received the information from the developer and the opinion of their private expert (who may take said information into account), to finalize their rejoinder in the infringement proceedings

IPPT20250716, UPC CFI, CD Paris, Ballinno v Kinexon
Protection of confidential information in application for a cost decision denied (R. 151 RoP, R. 262A RoP). The information regarding the litigation costs does not concern the main subject matter of the revocation proceedings and does not directly influence Claimant´s business activities, as would be the case, for example, if technical information from research and development or concluded license agreements were the subject of the confidentiality application. 
Further, the Court considers the limitation of the requested access to just one representative of Defendant to be unduly burdensome.

IPPT20250716, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Fujifilm v Kodak

Panel rejects request to review rejection by judge-rapporteur of request to issue a warning letter (R. 354 RoP, R. 333 RoP)). The panel did not - in the main decision - fix time periods for the fulfilment of operative parts B.III, B.IV. and B.V. and also did not decide on amounts of penalty up-front. All related points will have to be addressed in the course of an application to impose penalties and only there appropriate penalties will have to be set in the light of the facts of the case. If Claimant had disagreed with the main decision, it would have been bound to challenge the points subject to this review with an appeal against the decision on the merits. It is not for the panel to now alter the operative part of that decision upon a request for panel review.

IPPT20250715, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Lenovo v ASUSTek
Case management order on interim conference on the subject of FRANF (R. 105.2 RoP) 

IPPT20250715, UPC CFI, LD Munich, BioNTech v Promosome
Application for protection of confidential information unfounded (R. 262A RoP). The Confidential Information is already covered by the confidentiality order dated 10 March 2025

IPPT20250715, UPC CFI, LD Milan, Pirelli v Kingtyre
Confirmation by the Court of a settlement (R. 365 RoP)

IPPT20250715, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Qiagen v bioMerieux
Confidentiality club established (R. 262A RoP). Disclosure of prior art documents in Statement of defence not protected as confidential information. It is not sufficiently clear why the exact length of the peptides can be inferred from the collection of prior art in Exhibit. Furthermore, the information itself must be worthy of protection. Focusing on the context in which the information is presented in the Statement of defence would not enable one to distinguish it from non-protected information. Moreover, it is unclear how the Claimant could effectively protect the information against disclosure. UPC representatives and team: as part of their organisational autonomy, the UPC representatives are free to decide whom to involve in handling a case. External experts and team: External experts should be named in advance because of clear accountability. 

IPPT20250715, UPC CoA, Valinea v Tiru
Appeal ex parte order to preserve evidence and inspect premises rejected (R. 194 RoP, R. 196 RoP). When examining an Application for preserving evidence, the Court exercises its discretion. Urgency. It is necessary to distinguish between the assessment of urgency in the context of an Application for preserving evidence (R. 194.2(a) RoP) and the assessment of urgency in the context of an Application for provisional measures (R. 209.2(b) RoP). Urgency (R. 194.2 RoP) can be present if the evidence may become difficult to access after a given date or action. Under normal circumstances, a two month period from becoming aware of possible infringement to making the application to preserve evidence does not negatively affect the urgency. Risk of destruction (R. 194.2(c) RoP, R. 197.1 RoP). The risk of the destruction or unavailability of the evidence, as a criterion for assessing the merits of ex parte measures, concerns both access to the allegedly infringing furnace and the associated technical documentation. The assessment of the risk in question must be based on the probability (R. 194.2(c) RoP) or the demonstrable risk (R. 197.1 RoP) of evidence being destroyed or otherwise ceasing to be available, and not on the certainty of its disappearance or unavailability. Applicant’s duty of candour (R.192.3 RoP). Unlike with provisional measures, the Court does not have to be satisfied – with a sufficient degree of certainty – that the patent is valid in order to grant an order to preserve evidence. 

IPPT20250714, UPC CFI, CD Munich, Baussmann v Raimund Beck Nageltechnik
Order following interim conference (R. 105.5 RoP).

IPPT20250712, UPC CoA, Microsoft v Suinno
Impugned order revoked and decision by default dismissing the infringement action given against Suinno for failure to provide security for costs (R. 355.2 RoP, R. 158.5 RoP). Decision by default of R. 355.2 RoP only applies when a decision by default is sought "against the defendant of the claim". It does not apply when a decision by default is requested by the defendant against the claimant because the claimant failed to take a step within the time limit foreseen in the RoP or set by the Court or it failed to appear at an oral hearing pursuant to R. 355.1(a) and (b) RoP. The rationale underlying R. 355.2 RoP is that a decision by default against the defendant by which the Court orders the remedy sought by the claimant or the counter-claimant does not only require that the Court finds that the conditions mentioned in R. 355.1 (a) or (b) RoP are met but also finds that the conditions, that the order of the remedy sought presupposes, are met based on the facts that are put forward by the claimant which justify the claims, providing the procedural conduct of the defendant does not preclude to give such decision. The effectiveness of security for costs ordered under R. 158 RoP is ensured by the power granted to the Court under RoP 158.5 RoP to give a decision by default if the party bound to provide a security for costs fails to do so. It is only under exceptional circumstances that the Court may derogate from this general rule and the reference to the status quo of the action may not justify such a derogation.

IPPT20250712, UPC CoA, Suinno v Microsoft
Central Division has not exceeded the boundaries of its discretion in setting the amount of the security equal to 50% of the ceiling, meaning at € 300,000 (R. 158 RoP). Suinno's argument that the security for costs is "not commensurate with the real work it takes to communicate non-infringement or lack of validity to the Court" is not sufficiently substantiated. Its argument that a security for costs in the amount of € 100,000 is consistent with other security for costs already granted in the UPC do not give more reason to decrease the amount of the security for costs either, as it does not address the amount of legal costs and other expenses to be incurred by Microsoft in this particular case.

IPPT20250710, UPC CoA, OTEC Präzisionsfinish v Steros
No suspensive effect for appeal against preliminary injunction (Article 74 UPCA, R. 223 RoP). It is not apparent from OTEC’s submissions that OTEC was prevented at the oral hearing from also making statements on infringement and validity and within the time frame granted (see R.113.1 RoP). Certain of OTEC’s statements at the oral hearing that have not been taken into account in the impugned order, may have been implicitly considered and found to be inadequate for challenging Steros' submissions. Nor does the impugned order manifestly lack reasoning which would justify the granting of suspensive effect. 

IPPT20250710, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Aesculap v Shanghai International
Preliminary injunction, seizure and order to communicate information granted (Article 62 UPCA, Article 67 UPCA)). Absence of a party in summary proceedings from the oral hearing does not necessitate a default judgement (R. 210(3) RoP, R. 116 RoP, R. 355 RoP). Pursuant to R. 210(3) RoP, Rules 111 to 116 of the Rules of Procedure apply mutatis mutandis to summary proceedings. On this basis, the court is not obliged to postpone a procedural step, including a decision on the merits, solely because a party was not present at the oral hearing (R. 116(2) RoP). According to R. 116(3) RoP, a party not represented at the oral hearing shall be treated as if it were relying solely on its written submissions. Accordingly, the Local Chamber based its order on the respondent's submissions in the statement of opposition. Undisputed facts (R. 171.2 RoP). Only if the respondent disputes the allegation made by the applicant is it considered to be substantially disputed. If, as in this case, it does not do so and merely makes general statements about the applicant's burden of proof, the corresponding submission of the opposing party is deemed to be undisputed. Urgent interest regarding information on the origin and distribution channels to prevent future infringements, not with regard to production costs, profits and advertising, which is primarily relevant for the calculation of damages (Article 67 UPCA, R. 209.2(b) RoP)

IPPT20250710, UPC CFI, LD Hamburg, Nera Innovations v Xiaomi 
Patent upheld in limited form (Article 65 UPCA). Infringement action dismissed (Article 25 UPCA): not all features of claim 1 are realised by the contested embodiments. Reasonable number of auxiliary requests (twice 33) (R. 30.1(c) RoP) because the actual core of the auxiliary requests is small, the opposing party is not faced with unreasonable challenges, even if the number of auxiliary requests is quite high. Added matter: inadmissible intermediate generalisation (Article 123(2) and (3) EPC) because the term ‘magnetic’ (as used in the application) has been omitted from the wording of the claim. Inventive step – prior art with different field of application (Article 56 EPC). Person skilled in the art has no reason to consult D5 when searching for a solution to the problem addressed by the patent in suit because the subject matter of D5 has a different mode of operation and a different field of application compared to the claimed system for wireless charging.  

IPPT20250709, UPC CoA, Chint v JingAo
Security for costs granted against claimant residing in China (Art. 69(4) UPCA, R.158 RoP). The lack of experience in enforcing UPC cost decisions in China, does not rule out the possibility that enforcement will be burdensome. The fact that China is outside the EU is a relevant factor. A history of litigants having difficulties enforcing judgments in China is an important factor. The fact that China has a formal procedure to enforce judgments does not detract from the fact that this procedure can, in practice, be burdensome.

IPPT20250709, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, InterDigital v Disney
Order under penalty of a fine of € 100.000 to accept service of anti-anti-suit injunction (AASI) by the representatives of defendants in the main proceedings (R. 354.3 RoP, R. 213 RoP). The request and the order issued are therefore inextricably linked to the main proceedings. Therefore, the power of attorney cannot be effectively restricted in this respect either. This is already evident from the fact that the representation of the respondents by the lawyers in the main proceedings clearly cannot depend on whether the AASI application is filed in the main proceedings themselves as an accompanying application under Rule 206 VerfO or in separate application proceedings. In both cases, the subject matter is the same: the protection of the main proceedings from the imposition of a ban on litigation in a foreign forum, which is intended to prevent the domestic continuation of the proceedings. Violation of code of conduct by representative which may lead to exclusion (R. 290.2 RoP, R. 291 RoP).

IPPT20250709, UPC CFI, President, Interdigital v Disney 
Language of the proceedings changed to the language in which the patent was granted, namely English (Article 49(5) UPCA and R. 323 RoP)..

IPPT20250709, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Kodak v Fujifilm
Cost decision (R. 150 RoP). Defendants’ demand for reimbursement of representation costs for the cost procedure is unfounded. Proceedings for cost decisions under R. 150 et seq. RoP are summary proceedings, determined by the judge-rapporteur. Awarding compensation for the additional costs that can be attributed to the proceedings for cost decisions as such is not envisaged in the Rules. It would give the parties an incentive to spend considerable resources on these summary proceedings. Awarding costs upon costs cannot have been intended in the Rules. A party, even if successful in the context of proceedings for a cost decision under R. 150 RoP, will normally have to carry its own costs attributable to the cost proceedings. In exceptional cases a party may be ordered to bear any unnecessary costs it has caused the Court or another party

IPPT20250709, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Total Semiconductor v Texas Instruments 
Preliminary remarks for the preparation of the oral hearing (R. 105 RoP)

IPPT20250708, UPC CFI, LD Milan, PMA v AWM
Value of the dispute for the infringement action and the revocation action set at € 2 million (R. 370.6 RoP).

IPPT20250708, UPC CFI, CD Milan, Maschio Gaspardo v Spiridonakis Bros
Direct and indirect patent infringement (Article 25 UPCA, Article 26 UPCA), decision by default (R. 355. RoP, R. 171.2 RoP). Competence of Central Division regarding infringement in Bulgaria by a defendant outside of the UPCA territory (Greece)(Article 33(1) UPCA). Claim interpretation (Article 69 EPC). The patent description generally presents the patent’s “lexicon”.  When identical terms are used in a claim, they generally have the same meaning. However, 'claim language' does not forbid the use of different words for identical parts of a tool. It is only for certain parts of a device addressed in the claim that different terms are used. Level of evidence required and burden of proof for an in absentia decision. Rule 355.2 has a broader scope than Rule 171.2 and deals with a general non-contestation of all facts phrased in the statement of claim. Rule 355.2 requires that non-contestation be accompanied by facts justifying the remedy to prevent the claimant from gaining an unfair advantage [...]. Whether it is a declaration of infringement or a patent revocation, a decision cannot be issued 'by default' merely by acknowledging the absence of a defence. Rule 355.2 must be interpreted in light of the burden of proof principle set out in Rules 171.1 and 172.1, [...]  In any case he claimant must put forward all elements in its possession to justify the legal requests. These elements constitute the de minimis requirements for a statement of claim to be considered complete and admissible. Rule 355.2, therefore, imposes de minimis factual allegations for a decision to be issued in absentia, namely those set out in Rules 12 and 13 RoP. It is not necessary to take a stand on patent invalidity, as the court does not raise the issue of patent validity ex officio, even in a decision by default. Direct infringement (Article 25 UPCA). Rebuttable presumption regarding other acts addressed in Article 25 UPCA. The Court may find for a direct infringement, where the completion of the infringing product by the user is clearly to be if a concretely outlined completion of the patented device is to be expected with certainty. Indirect infringement (Article 26 UPCA). “Offer” is to be understood broadly: Since the attacked embodiment can be ordered online from [Germany, Italy, France and Bulgaria] (with shipment to Bulgaria or pick up in Greece), it is offered there. The requirements of Art. 26 with regard to the so called “double territoriality link” are met where the offer and the putting into effect are established with regard to the territory of the contracting member states where the EP is valid. It is not necessary that both the offer and the putting into effect refer to the same contracting member state, even with regard to “bundle patents”. 

IPPT20250703, UPC CoA, Tandem v Roche
Court fee 60% refunded after settlement before closure of written procedure as per R. 370.9(c)(i)  RoP

IPPT20250703, UPC CoA, NST v Qualcomm
Only one US attorney granted access to the confidential information (R. 262A RoP). NST has not demonstrated that it is necessary to grant access to more than one trusted US attorney to serve as a link between NST and the UPC representatives. This access does not imply that information can be cross-used.

IPPT20250703, UPC CoA, Tiroler v SSAB
Determination of costs following a withdrawal of an action is subject to the ordinary rules (R. 265 RoP, R. 150 et seq. RoP). The legal review on appeal of a decision as per art. R. 150 RoP is limited to a marginal review of whether the judge-rapporteur’s assessment of costs results in the successful party being compensated for legal costs and other expenses beyond what is reasonable and proportionate, or otherwise deviates from the principles inherent in Art. 69(1) UPCA, as specified in R. 150 et seq. RoP

IPPT20250703, UPC CoA, Tiroler v SSAB
Determination of costs following a withdrawal of an action is subject to the ordinary rules (R. 265 RoP, R. 150 et seq. RoP). The legal review on appeal of a decision as per art. R. 150 RoP is limited to a marginal review of whether the judge-rapporteur’s assessment of costs results in the successful party being compensated for legal costs and other expenses beyond what is reasonable and proportionate, or otherwise deviates from the principles inherent in Art. 69(1) UPCA, as specified in R. 150 et seq. RoP

IPPT20250703, UPC CoA, OrthoApnea
Action withdrawn by appellant with consent. Appellant to pay costs of the appeal as the unsuccesfull party (R. 265 RoP), Article 69(1) UPCA)

IPPT20250703, UPC CoA, Advanced Bionics v Med-El
Withdrawal of appeal by party consent (R. 265 RoP)..

IPPT20250703, UPC CFI, President, Avago v Renault
Language of the proceedings changed to the language in which the patent was granted, namely English (Article 49(5) UPCA, R. 323 RoP). When deciding on an application to change the language of the proceedings to the language in which the patent was granted for reasons of fairness, while all relevant circumstances must be taken into account, the arguments referring to the conditions in which the final decision may be enforced in the territory where the alleged infringement occurred are of less relevance in the overall assessment and balancing of interests, as they relate to the outcome of the trial – which cannot be anticipated – and not to the respective situation of the parties during the proceeding.

IPPT20250703, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Lenovo v Asustek
Application for extension of time period because of temporary shutdown of the CMS rejected (R 9.3 RoP).This circumstance is already taken into account by the automatic extension of the deadline in accordance with Rule 301.2 RoP.

IPPT20250703, UPC CFI, LD München, Headwater v Motorola
Security for costs for the benefit of defendants in infringement action, claimants in counterclaim for a declaration of invalidity (Article 69(4) UPCA, R. 158.1 RoP). Even if the defendant in an infringement action is formally the claimant in a counterclaim for a declaration of invalidity, he may, […] also request security for the costs incurred and/or to be incurred by him in bringing the counterclaim for a declaration of invalidity. Otherwise, the defendant could be unreasonably restricted in his legal defence because he is forced to file a counterclaim for revocation in order to object to the validity of the contested patent without any prospect of reimbursement of the costs incurred as a result.

IPPT20250702, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Swarco v Yunex
Security for costs cannot be requested regarding a party intervening on behalf of the defendant (R. 315. RoP, Article 69 UPCA, R. 158 RoP)

IPPT20250702, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Corning v Hisense
Extension of time period for filing the Reply to the Statement of defence and the Defence to the counterclaim because of establishing confidentiality club (R. 29(a) RoP, R. 262A RoP) to compensate for the period during which a party of the proceedings does not have full access to the subject matter of the case for the purpose of pursuing its patent rights.

IPPT20250702, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Quantificare v Canfield Scientific
No bifurcation (Article 33(3) UPCA, R. 37.2 RoP). A joint hearing of the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation appears sensible for reasons of efficiency alone. It is also advantageous in terms of content, as it allows decisions to be made on both the legal status and the question of infringement on the basis of a uniform interpretation by the same panel.

IPPT20250701, UPC CoA, Easee v Visibly
Appeal from  order to provide security stayed in entirety for the time that the CFI proceedings are stayed as ordered by the Hamburg Local Division because of insolvency (R. 295m RoP, R. 311.1 RoP). During the stay of the proceedings Easee is not obliged to provide the ordered security and that during the stay of the proceedings both appeals are devoid of purpose. This justifies the stay of the appeal proceedings.