2025 UPC June

IPPT20250630, UPC CFI, LD Paris, HP v Nokia
Unlimited access granted with leave to appeal and suspensive effect until the expiration of the deadline for filing an appeal or, if an appeal is filed, until the end of such proceedings (R. 262.2(b) RoP, R. 220.2 RoP). Court can on its own motion impose certain conditions on granting access for the purpose of appropriate protection of the integrity of proceedings, since this is a matter of the general interest. No access granted to Exhibits containing a Statement of Claim in an action before the Local Division Munich and a translation of it, on which it is stated that it contains confidential information. A request can be submitted at the Local Division Munich.

IPPT20250630, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Roche v Tandem
No refund of court fees following settlement after the conclusion of the oral proceedings (R. 370.9(c) RoP) It follows from R. 111(b) RoP, according to which the presiding judge must ensure that the proceedings are ready for decision at the end of the oral hearing, that the oral proceedings are also concluded when the oral hearing ends (UPC_CoA_520/2024, order of 18 April 2025, para. 15 – Scandit v. Hand Held)

IPPT20250627, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Sanofi v Accord
Panel confirmation of judge rapporteur’s case management order of 8 May 2025 (ORD_10069/2025) regarding the management of the subsequent proceedings is confirmed under the condition that the typo in item 4 of the order is corrected to “Rule 29(e) of the Rules of Procedure” (R. 332 RoP, R. 333 RoP)

IPPT20250627, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Centripetal v Palo Alto
The time period for Defendant’s rejoinder in the infringement proceedings, its reply to the defence to the counterclaim for revocation and its defence against the application to amend the patent is extended with two weeks extended until 14 July 2025 (R. 29 RoP) due to unforeseen international flight restrictions due to events of the last two weeks regarding Israel

IPPT20250627, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Irdeto v DJI
Extension of time period for Statement of defence  justified in order to establish a uniform time period regime, given that the dates of service vary for the Defendants 2 to 4, which are represented uniformly and which in the case of Defendants 2 and 3 belong to the same group if companies.(Rule 9.3 RoP, R. 23 RoP).
 

IPPT20250627, UPC CFI, CD Munich, Baussmann v Raimund Beck Nageltechnik
Invitation to interim hearing (R. 101.1 RoP)

IPPT20250626, UPC CFI, LD Hamburg, Visibly v Easee
If a party is declared insolvent the parties’ representatives are still able to file the stay application under Rule 311.1 RoP. This corresponds with the concept of the RoP that the insolvency of a party does not lead to an automatic stay of proceedings, thus upholding the legal ability of the assigned representative to act before the UPC on behalf of the party. In fact, it is the acting representatives’ obligation to notify the Court of the insolvency. The proceedings are stayed in their entirety, including the proceedings against the company director. A stay according to R. 311 RoP is generally a stay of the proceedings as a whole. Due to the stay of the proceedings the three Defendants are no longer obliged to provide the ordered security (R. 335 RoP).

IPPT20250626, UPC CoA, Easee v Visibly
Suspensive effect granted for appeal from order to provide security by defendant in infringement action because of manifest error (R. 223 RoP, Article 69(4) UPCA). After the impugned order was issued, in other proceedings, the Court of Appeal has ruled that Art.69(4) UPCA does not provide a legal basis for an order to provide a security for costs at the request of a claimant in an infringement action and that a security for costs may also not be requested by such claimant in response to a counterclaim lodged by the defendant in the infringement action (UPC_CoA_393/2025, APL_20694/2025 AorticLab vs. Emboline). As it is clear from the reasons of the AorticLab vs. Emboline order, the principles apply regardless of the circumstances of the individual case. Outstanding issue regarding competence of law firm (Article 48 UPCA, R. 285 RoP) to file the appeal and the application for suspensive effect regarding the Easee companies in view of the insolvency of both entities having formally declared insolvent at the time when these motions were filed.

IPPT20250626, UPC CoA, Ballinno v Kinexon
Request rejected to release € 56.000 security placed by Ballinno (Article 69(4) UPCA, R. 158 RoP). The evidence presented by Ballinno on the balance on its bank account is insufficient since in the event of a procedural loss, Ballinno must be able to cover both its own litigation costs – which may well exceed the applicable ceiling – and that of the other parties. The provision of security does not hamper Ballinno’s access to justice. The disposal of an action under R. 360 RoP following a withdrawal does not necessarily preclude the application of the principle  that the unsuccessful party must bear the costs (Article 69(1) UPCA). Under the circumstances of the case it is not necessary to examine the merits of the case to determine who the successful part is (one party unsuccessful in both instances)

IPPT20250623, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Aesculap v Shanghai International
Information in preparation for oral hearing (R. 105.5 RoP, R. 9.1 RoP). 

IPPT20250623, UPC CoA, Sumi v Syngenta
Court fees are considered paid on time (R. 371 RoP) if an order to transfer the due amount to the Court’s bank account has been given to a bank at the time of lodging the relevant pleading or application, provided the payment is subsequently received in the Court’s bank account. This interpretation allows the applicant to use the full time limit granted by the RoP and UPCA. A lodging party is therefore considered not to have paid the court fee if the payment is not received in the Court’s bank account. In such a case, the lodging party must be deemed not to have made the necessary arrangements for the fee payment.

IPPT20250623, UPC CoA, Arkyne v Plant-e
Settlement confirmed by the Court (R. 365.1 RoP). The request for confidentiality from the public under R. 262.2, 365.2 RoP will be decided once a R. 262.1(b) RoP request is made by a member of the public. The confidentiality interests of the parties are protected by the order of the court that only the decision including the redacted version of the settlement shall be entered on the register.

IPPT20250620, UPC CoA, AorticLab v Emboline
Security for costs can only be requested by defendants  (Article 69(4) UPCA, R. 158 RoP). Article 69(4) UPCA contains deliberate language to restrict the possibility to request a security order to a defendant. R. 158 RoP cannot be interpreted as merely extending the Court’s powers beyond those explicitly provided in Article 69(4) UPCA. A legal basis for the possibility for a claimant requesting an order that the defendant provide security for costs cannot be found in the Enforcement Directive. The claimant in an infringement action also cannot request security for costs in the counterclaim for revocation action, as the counterclaim is intrinsically linked to the infringement action and defences can only be brought by way of a counterclaim for revocation.

IPPT20250620, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Headwater v Motorola
Preliminary objections rejected (R. 19 RoP, R. 20 RoP). Objections of defendants 1) and 2) were lodged one day after the expiry of the one month objection period (R. 300(c) RoP). Deemed day of service of Rule 271.6(b) RoP does only apply to service of a Statement of claim in a Contracting State but not in the USA. The actual date of service must be taken into account, for which the CMS is not decisive, but rather the certificate of service or other proof of service. Objections of defendants 1) to 3) rejected. Competence over multiple defendants having a commercial relationship and the same alleged infringement, even though the contributions of each defendant is not identical (Article 33(1)(b) UPCA). Objections of defendant 5) rejected (Article 33(1)(b) UPCA). The existence of a business relationship as such with companies belonging to the Motorola Group is not disputed, nor the existence of a commercial activity with the same purpose, namely the promotion of manufacturing through production management agreements. An indirect business relationship with other companies in the Motorola Group to which the third defendant also belongs and with which it maintains business relationships, is sufficient. Also competence on the basis of Article 33(1)(a) UPCA, although not stated in the Statement of claim. Plaintiff's reference thereto in its response to the opposition must be taken into account. (R. 13 RoP, R. 263 RoP). Even if the plaintiff had not invoked Article 33(1)(a) UPCA in the dispute, the court would have been free  to base the jurisdiction of the Local Chamber on this provision. Fifth defendant is also allegedly an intermediary by enabling and promoting the infringing acts of the other defendants as a logistics service provider (Article 63(1) UPCA).

IPPT20250620, UPC CFI, LD Milan, Ericsson v Asustek
Panel review dismissed of confidentiality club order rejecting external eyes only (R. 262A RoP). On the specific issue of potential antitrust violation, Ericsson limited itself in a general way to arguing that there is a risky situation related to the disclosure of the financial aspects of the information, in particular because Ericsson’s licensees may be in direct competition with Asustek. Admissible application for panel review of confidentiality club order (R. 262A RoP, R. 333.1 RoP). An order under rule 262A RoP influences the conduct of the proceedings and is thus an order directing the proceedings according to rule 333.1 RoP. 

IPPT20250620, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, ZTE v Samsung
Value in dispute for FRAND counterclaim increased up from € 4 million (R. 370 RoP)

IPPT20250619, UPC CFI, LD Paris, NJ Diffusion v Gisela Mayer
Voluntary intervention by receiver in insolvency of NJ Diffusion allowed (R. 313 RoP). The consequences of this voluntary intervention will be decided in the substantive decision to be made. Request for security for costs inadmissible (R. 158 RoP). The panel notes, on the one hand, that this judicial guarantee provided for in R. 158 RdP does not condition the continuation of the action before the JUB, since only the involvement of the collective proceedings bodies and the declaration of claims in the proceedings constitute the sine qua non conditions for the resumption of the ongoing action, and on the other hand,  that the granting of this judicial guarantee to one of the creditors of the debtor in receivership would be contrary to the principle of equality of creditors that governs collective proceedings under French law.

IPPT20250619, UPC CoA, Alexion v Amgen
Application for rehearing (R. 245 RoP, Article 81 UPCA)) rejected as not allowable. The legislator has explicitly chosen that decisions by the Court of Appeal are to be final. The literal wording of Art. 81(1) UPCA makes clear that a rehearing may exceptionally be granted only if the decision suffers from one of these serious deficiencies. A rehearing is thus not a regular appeal proceeding, but an extraordinary legal remedy. Only fundamental procedural defects can be the basis for a rehearing. Mere errors of any kind cannot be a ground for an application for rehearing. A defect may only be considered fundamental if it can be established that without the defect the same decision would not have been taken. The Court must consider all arguments brought forward by the parties, but it is, however, not required to explicitly and exhaustively address in its order or decision each and every argument advanced by a party in detail in the order or decision. 

IPPT20250618, 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).

IPPT20250618, UPC CoA, ILME v Phoenix
Appeal has become devoid of purpose (R. 360 RoP) after the withdrawal of the infringement action has been allowed and the infringement proceedings have been declared closed. No need to submit a request for withdrawal of the appeal pursuant to R. 265 RoP. Appeal must be dismissed pursuant to R. 360 RoP. No need to make a decision on costs.

IPPT20250617, UPC CFI, LD Milan, PMA v AWM
Order following interim conference (R. 105.5 RoP). Admissibility of the application for a new amendment of the patent (new version of AR4) pursuant to rule 30.2 RoP, as submitted by Progress in its rejoinder to the reply and reply to defence to the application to amend the patent dated 20.3.2025 referred to the panel (R. 263 RoP, R. 102 RoP)
 

IPPT20250617, UPC CoA, Knaus Tabbert v Yellow Sphere

Inadmissible application (“Gegenvorstellung”) based on R. 9.1 RoP regarding the Court of Appeal’s order of 21 may 2025 in which the application for suspensive effect of the appeal against the impugned order was rejected (Article 74 UPCA, R. 223 RoP). This provision relates to the Court's authority to issue procedural orders during ongoing proceedings. However, it does not give the Court the power to amend or revoke orders that conclude proceedings. The right to an effective remedy under Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFREU) does not afford a right of access to a second level of adjudication but only to a court or tribunal. Applicable law; autonomous UPCA law (Article 24 UPCA). The legal framework in Austria and Germany is not decisive for the interpretation of Art. 82(2) UPCA because Art. 82(2) UPCA contains an independent provision that must be interpreted autonomously.

IPPT20250616, UPC CFI, LD Hamburg, Steros v Otec
PI granted (Article 25 UPCA, Article 62(1) UPCA, R. 211.1(a) RoP). Standing to sue exclusive licensee (Article 47(2) UPCA). Given the Applicant's aim of obtaining unrestricted freedom to operate, there can be no reasonable doubt that patents registered after the agreement was concluded are also to be licensed. Insofar as the Defendant raises doubts about the incorporation of future property rights, these appear to be unfounded. The patent proprietor, which belongs to the same group of companies as the Applicant, is aware of the present proceedings. It can be assumed that the patent proprietor would have raised objections to the Applicant's present application if the Applicant had not been entitled to assert it before this Court. This should make it clear that the Applicant is also licensed to use the patent in suit. Sufficient degree of certainty regarding the validity of the patent in suit (Article 65 UPCA, R. 209 RoP) lacks if the Court considers it on the balance of probabilities to be more likely than not that the patent is invalid. The burden of presentation and proof for facts concerning the lack of validity of the patent in suit lies with the defendant. It should be noted that the assessment of these probabilities is based on an examination of how the Court – consisting of a panel including a technical qualified judge – would probably decide about the revocation of the patent in the event of a counterclaim on the merits. Decisions of other European Courts or decisions of the EPO concerning the same patent do not bind the Court but may provide helpful indications that the Court may take into account. Defendant was unable to demonstrate that feature group 1.1 was directly and unambiguously disclosed by the public prior use (Article 54 EPC). It can be noted that the attacked embodiment and the alleged prior use differ in their composition, so that no conclusion can be drawn regarding the measurements of the attacked embodiment with regard to the public prior use. Claim interpretation – skilled person (Article 69 EPC): the skilled person is taking the purpose of every patent claim into account, to provide the average person skilled in the art with a technical teaching which, when reworked, leads to the intended success of the invention. Weighing of interests (Article 62(2) UPCA). Above all, the balance of interests must take into account the probability of an erroneous decision and also the objective urgency in terms of the necessity of provisional measures with regard to equally possible proceedings on the merits. All aspects are to be weighed against each other in relation to each other. The Defendant sells a new machine, which can be used in a new environment and therefore in a new market and that can be operated with the attacked embodiment, the Applicant will suffer a lasting loss of market share of its electrolyte media, resulting in lower sales. The patent infringement, therefore, leads to subsequent business transactions for the Defendant, which are at the same time missed opportunities for the Applicant. [...] price erosion to the disadvantage of the Applicant occurs. No provision of security for enforcement (Article 82(2) UPCA, R. 211.5 RoP). absent reasons given by the defendant nor a provision of how damages would be calculated. The undue burden can for example be related to the financial position of the applicant, or to the foreign law applicable in the territory where the order for compensation shall be enforced, including the application of that foreign law. The Defendant applied in the objection for a security of enforcement. Apart from reproducing the wording of R. 211.5 RoP, no grounds were given for such an order. Decision on costs (Article 69 UPCA). The Court is of the opinion, like the Court of Appeal […], that a cost decision should be issued in inter partes proceedings for provisional measures, since it concludes the action.

IPPT20250616, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, 10x Genomics v Curio Bioscience
Direct patent infringement (Article 25 UPCA); Injunction for Germany, France and Sweden, recall, destruction, providing information, to compensate for damages. Mere use of subclaims as additional arguments at the oral hearing to support a previous position taken by Claimant is not considered late (R. 263 RoP, Article 69 EPC). As claim construction is a matter of law and the Court must independently construe the claims, and as the construction of feature 1.6. was in dispute between the parties anyway. Claim interpretation: embodiments and subclaims as examples of the invention (Article 69 EPC). If several embodiments are presented in the description as being in accordance with the invention, the terms used in the claim are to be understood, in case of doubt, as meaning that all embodiments can be used to fulfil them. The same applies for subclaims, which do not normally narrow the scope of the main claim. They merely demonstrate possibilities for its design, which may offer an additional advantage. Claim interpretation: a statement of purpose in the claim (Article 69 EPC) usually serve to improve understanding of the invention and as a rule have the indirect effect of defining the subject matter protected by the patent in such a way that it must not only fulfil the spatial-physical features, but must also be designed to be usable for the purpose stated in the claim. Extent of protection – burden of proof of non-infringement (Article 69 EPC, R. 171 RoP). It is for the Defendant to work out in each case in relation to the individual features of the claim, how specifically the technical design of the challenged embodiment differs in each case from the description in the article and to explain why this is relevant for the question of infringement. Rebuttable presumption of infringement (Article 25 UPCA). By offering and placing the challenged embodiment on the market, the Defendant gives rise to a rebuttable presumption that it also uses it or imports or possesses it for the purposes of offering, placing on the market, or using it. Extent of protection – enabling disclosure (Article 69 EPC, Article 83 EPC). Even if the claim does not specify the more detailed technical design of the surface structure of the array at the time of release, the presence of an array in the aforementioned sense, from the surface of which the release takes place, remains necessary. Enforcement not subject to security (Article 82(2) UPCA, R. 118.8 RoP). It is for the Defendant to submit facts and arguments as to why it is appropriate in the particular case to make the order or measure pursuant to R. 118.8 RoP subject to a security to be determined by the Court.

IPPT20250616, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Esko v XSYS
Proceedings stayed at party request to allow fruitful settlement negotiations which are pending between the parties without the pressure of ongoing proceedings before the UPC (R. 295.d RoP)

IPPT20250615, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Headwater v Samsung
Security for costs dismissed (R. 158 RoP). It is sufficient for a defendant to establish that enforcement of a cost order is unduly burdensome. The burden of showing this is on the applicant of an order for security for costs. To this end, the applicant shall not only provide evidence as to the foreign law applicable in the territory where the order shall be enforced, but also its application. Furthermore, the Court notes that, according to the UPC case law, US courts routinely recognise and enforce judgments of foreign courts. Furthermore, the Defendants have failed to submit any substantiating facts indicating a tangible risk of insolvency. In particular being an NPE as such is not sufficient to give rise to a risk of insolvency of the Claimant.

IPPT20250613, UPC CFI, CD Munich, TCL v Corning
Having heard the parties in relation to applications 23661/2025 and 25818/2025, the Court: (i) Admits the pleadings submitted with application 23661/2025 including the new added matter arguments and the Swedish Consulting Report into these [Revocation] proceedings (R. 263 RoP); (ii) Extends the deadline for filing the Defence to Revocation including an Application to amend the patent by two weeks (R. 49 RoP)

IPPT20250612, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Katun v Canon
No bifurcation with party consent (Article 33(3) UPCA, R. 37 RoP)

IPPT20250612, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, Genevant v Moderna
Claimants are given to opportunity to respond within one week to  ‘application to review a case management order’ (R. 333 RoP), requesting to have the order of the JR of 23 May 2025 (ORD 21852/2025) regarding preliminary objections [R. 20 RoP] filed by Defendants, reviewed by the entire panel (Rule 333.1 RoP).

IPPT20250612, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, Genevant v Moderna
Claimants are given the opportunity to respond within one week (R. 19 RoP) to ‘application to review a case management order’  (R. 333 RoP), regarding preliminary objections filed by Defendants by the entire panel (Rule 333.1 RoP). In the alternative to allow the appeal against the decision of the panel on the preliminary objections.  

IPPT20250610, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Aesculap v Shanghai International
Respondent permitted to engage an interpreter at her own expense (R. 109 RoP). Application to allow respondent’s legal representative to participate in the oral hearing by video conference rejected (R. 112(3) RoP): no reasons given why it is seeking such permission. 

IPPT20250609, UPC CFI, CD Paris, NJOY v Juul
Applicant granted access (R. 262 RoP) to the written pleadings and evidence lodged by the parties in the [first instance] Revocation action, subject to the redaction of personal data. The integrity of any appeal proceedings – as currently pending – cannot be considered to be a reason to impose conditions on access to pleadings and evidence submitted in the first instance proceedings.

IPPT20250606, UPC CoA, NUC v Hurom
Suspensive effect rejected (Article 74 UPCA, R. 223 RoP) of appeal against order to communicate information (Article 67 UPCA, Article 8 Enforcement Directive). The provisions of Art. 67 UPCA mirror those of Article 8 of the Enforcement Directive” which, is designed to ensure a high level of protection in all the Member States of the European Union, and allows precise information to be obtained on the origin of the infringing goods or services, the distribution channels and the identity of any third parties involved in the infringement (Enforcement Directive, Preamble para. 21). It is thus only under exceptional circumstances that the enforcement of such measures may be suspended under R. 223 RoP. Even if disclosure of the information pending the appeal would to some extent undermine the purpose of the appeal against this part of the impugned decision, it must be shown that the appeal becomes devoid of purpose without suspensive effect and that its interests in maintaining the confidentiality of the information pending the appeal outweigh the respondent’s interests in immediately obtaining the relevant information.

IPPT20250606, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Tiroler Rohre v SSAB
Patent partially invalid (Article 65 UPCA) and infringed (Article 25 UPCA). Inventive step (Article 56 EPC): Problem-solution-approach: to increase legal certainty and further align the case law of the Unified Patent Court with the case law of the EPO and its Boards of Appeal, the problem-solution approach (PSA) developed by the European Patent Office (EPO) should be applied as far as possible. Extent of protection (Article 69 EPC); infringement (Article 25 UPCA); Injunction (Article 63 UPCA): If a device has the required suitability, it is irrelevant whether the characteristics and effects specified in the patent are achieved regularly, only in exceptional cases or only by chance, and whether the user intends to achieve these effects. It is sufficient that the groove base present in the contested embodiments is potentially suitable for receiving the front end of a pile end. In the court's view, this is the case because the groove of the contested embodiments, which tapers towards the groove base and is shown below, does not prevent a pile with a wall thickness corresponding to the groove base or a tapered pile from reaching the groove base. An injunction relating to the contested embodiments could not be imposed if, taking into account all relevant parameters such as shape (cone), material, wall thickness of the pile, soil conditions and pile driving force, it is technically impossible to manufacture a pile whose front end can reach the bottom of the groove of the contested pile tips when they are attached or driven in. In this case, the claim's requirement of attachability and thus the realisation of all features of the patent claim would have to be denied, even though this is a circumstance outside the scope of the patent claim. Burden of proof regarding infringement (Article 25 UPCA, Article 54 UPCA). The plaintiff must demonstrate and prove that all the features of the patent in suit are realised by the contested embodiments (ramming tips), since it alleges infringement and thus the realisation of all the features of the patent in suit by the contested embodiments. If the defendants claim that patent infringement is impossible due to circumstances outside the scope of the patent claim, the defendants bear the burden of proof for this claim . Territorial scope of decision (Article 34 UPCA). Defendants’ position that the geographical scope of the prohibition should be limited to Germany, Austria and Italy, since the contested embodiments were only offered there, is incorrect on the basis of Article 34 EPC. In the case of a European patent, the decisions of the court apply to the territory of those contracting member states for which the European patent is effective. Publication of the decision (Article 15 Enforcement Directive). The court does not agree with the defendants' view that there is no legitimate interest in publishing the judgment because EPG decisions are published anyway. If this were the case, any application for publication of the judgment would always have to be rejected.

IPPT20250606, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Sunstar v Ceracon - I
Application for leave to amend the counterclaim for revocation dismissed (R. 263 RoP). A claimant in a counterclaim for revocation is not free, or at least privileged, to amend its case compared to a claimant in an infringement action. Rather, R. 263 RoP applies in full to a counterclaim for revocation. In any case, granting leave to amend the counterclaim for revocation if a simple search could have revealed a document from the prior art which the claimant of the counterclaim for revocation itself considers highly relevant would amount to allowing practically any document found later and the attack on validity based thereon.

IPPT20250606, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Sunstar v Ceracon - II
Clarifying amendment to the wording of Request IV in the Statement of claims is admissible without the need of an application pursuant to R. 263 RoP and, if necessary, permitted. Obvious oversights cannot automatically be regarded as grounds for exclusion under R. 263.2(a) RoP in accordance with the purpose of R. 263 RoP to protect the front-loaded proceedings. When assessing whether to grant leave for the amendment of the claim, the court has to balance the conflicting interests of the parties concerned, thereby taking all circumstances of the individual case into account.

IPPT20250606, UPC CoA, Hanshow v VusionGroup
A decision on cost for provisional measures proceedings must be applied for within one month of service of the decision on the merits (R. 151.1 RoP). If no proceedings on the merits are pending the on month time limit begins with the service of the first instance order for provisional measures. The time limit of R. 151 RoP is not included in the list of time limits contained in R. 9.4 RoP that cannot be extended by the Court under R. 9.3 RoP. However, R. 9 RoP is to be understood as applying to pending proceedings. Upon expiry of the one-month period pursuant to R. 151 RoP, the substantive right of the successful party to apply for a decision on costs expires. R. 151 RoP is to be regarded as materially preclusive. Re-establishment of rights (R. 320 RoP) is generally applicable and must be regarded as a general rule in this case. A party may apply for re-establishment within one month of the reason for missing the deadline being removed – but in any case within six months of the missed deadline.

IPPT20250606, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Dish v Aylo
Patent infringement claim dismissed (Article 25 UPCA), partial revocation (Article 65 UPCA). No abuse of right during the transitional period by also filing a patent infringement before the national regional court at Munich regarding the same acts and a patent belonging to the same patent family (Article 83 UPCA). Amendments to corrective measures of the Statement of claim are not objectionable as such (R. 263 RoP, R. 30 RoP). The application for a declaratory judgment made in the oral hearing is not admissible as an extension of the action, R. 263.1, .2 (a) RoP. Doctrine of equivalence (Article 2 Interpretation Protocol). There is no equivalent patent infringement if there is no technical and functional equivalence of the substitute product in the sense that the modified products do not essentially fulfil the same function in order to achieve essentially the same effect. Insofar as the same function is not taken as a basis, at least essentially the same effect is taken as a basis. Revocation of dependent subclaims (Article 65 UPCA). There is generally no legal interest in the isolated removal of dependent subclaims by means of an action for annulment (or counterclaim) without removing the independent claim to which they refer. The subject matter of the patent in suit is not extended by these subclaims as such. Appropriate number of auxiliary request depends on the circumstances of the case and the number of attacks on the patent in suit may also be taken into account (R. 30.1 c) RoP).

IPPT20250605, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Phoenix v ILME
Withdrawal of infringement claim and counterclaim for revocation (R. 265 RoP). Each party bearing its own costs

IPPT20250605, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Fingon v Samsung
Case management (R. 334 RoP. R. 9 RoP). The decision on the request to exclude the impugned submissions from consideration is postponed until after the oral hearing, and thus transferred to the panel. There is no amendment to the case. Not every new argument constitutes an “amendment of a case” requiring a party to apply for leave under R. 263 RoP. Defendants’ request to extend the time period pursuant to R. 29 (d) RoP is dismissed.

IPPT20250605, UPC CFI, CD Milan, Eoflow v Insulet
Confidentiality club as to information regarding attorney’s fees and expenses incurred. (Article 58 UPCA, R. 262A RoP). Protection cannot be recognized from the point of view of protecting the law firm about the disclosure of the costs it applies to patent litigation, but only from the point of view of the company, which is the sole beneficiary of the protection governed by Rule 262A RoP but not under the principle of attorney-client privilege. In fact, rule 262A refers to information ‘contained in its pleadings’ and evidence thereof and, therefore, to information identifiable as company secrets in the sense previously referred to. INSULET’s request to limit confidentiality to law firms’ representatives only is dismissed
 

IPPT20250604, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, Genevant v Moderna
Rectification of date of service in PO Order and assumed late filing of Preliminary objections (R. 353 RoP,,R. 19 RoP).. The applications are founded. The dates of service mentioned for Moderna Germany, Belgium and Poland in the PO Order are incorrect and constitute clerical mistakes, errors in calculation and/or obvious slips in the order which can be rectified pursuant to R.353 RoP.

IPPT20250604, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, 10x Genomics v Curio Bioscience
Change of confidentiality club members (R. 262A RoP) to provide access rights to two paralegals to ensure proper file management. Limited request by the Applicant alone does not provide grounds to question the access rights of paralegals

IPPT20250604, UPC CoA, Hybridgenerator v HGSystem
Penalty payments because of alleged failure to comply with the terms of a first instance court order, are to be decided by a panel of the Court (instead of a single judge) upon request of the other party or of its own motion (R. 354.4 RoP. The procedure foreseen in R. 264 RoP shall apply (opportunity to be heard). At this stage, there is a right of the other party to be heard. It can be left open whether it would have been possible for the parties to agree on a single judge (R. 345.6 RoP).

IPPT20250603, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Swarco v Yunex
Intervention by Shenzen Dianming granted (R. 314 RoP). The other parties have not raised any objections

IPPT2025040603, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Edwards v Meril
Two identical applications for rectification because of CMS questions when filing a request for rectification (R. 353 RoP). The applications are founded with regard to items 1, 2, 3, 7 and 8. Edwards did not object to these requests.

IPPT20250603, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Centripetal Limited v Palo Alto Networks
Ex parte order to preserve evidence and inspect premises after case is referred back by Court of Appeal (Article 60 UPCA, R. 192 RoP, R. 243 RoP). After referral back by the CoA, the court is bound by the order of the CoA (R. 243.2 RoP) as far as the CoA ruled on the addressed issues and orders as follows accordingly hereinafter. It is referred to the reasoning of the CoA’s order. As the CoA did not decide on the question whether or not the execution of the order - [...] - may only take place after defendant was informed [...], the CFI had discretion to decide under R. 196.3 RoP, whether immediate enforcement nonetheless is proportionate on the instant facts or whether the enforceability has to be put under further conditions. Justified to allow the defendant a limited time of two hours to be able to reach out to a lawyer of his choice to attend the setting up and monitoring as described hereinafter

IPPT20250603, UPC CoA, Tandem v Roche
Settlement confirmed by court as per R. 365 RoP. Request for confidentiality under R. 262.2 RoP not confirmed and will only be dealt with when a request is made under R. 262.1(b) RoP

IPPT20250603, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Fujifilm v Kodak

Request to issue a penalty warning rejected (Article 82(4) UPCA, R. 354 RoP). The panel explicitly decided in the main decision that no fixed time period for the provision of the information is set and that no amount of penalty is set up-front. All related points will have to be addressed in the course of an application to impose penalties.

IPPT20250602, UPC CFI, LD Milan, Dainese v Alpinestars 
Proceedings concerning EP 117 stayed until either party notifies the Court of the final decision issued by the Opposition Division of the EPO (Article 43 UPCA, R. 295 RoP). According to the doctrine, where all parties request the stay of proceedings, the Court must order the stay. despite the use of the word ‘may’ at the beginning of the Rule, it has no discretion. A stay of the counterclaim proceedings and of the applications to amend the patent EP '117 is a more efficient management of the proceedings and avoid unnecessary activities by the parties and the Court.

IPPT20250602, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Hurom v NUC
Confidentiality club application dismissed (R. 262A RoP) for information to be communicated  pursuant to a court order (Article 67 UPCA). R. 262A RoP applies only to information contained in the pleadings of the parties to the proceedings. Restrictions inherent to the order to provide information on the use of the information: The information, which Defendants have been ordered to provide, may only be used to identify third infringers, to determine and calculate damages and to verify information obtained from the Defendants in this regard (cf. decision on the merits, para. 121). In particular, Claimant is not allowed to use the information in order to gain a competitive advantage. Moreover, any unauthorised or improper use may in addition constitute a breach of business secrecy within the meaning of Directive (EU) 2016/943 (“Trade Secrets Directive”)

IPPT20250602, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Biomarin v Ascendis
No bifurcation (Article 33(3) UPCA). Panel supports the judge rapporteur's decision to set the date of the interim conference for 9 January 2026 (R. 28 RoP). BioMarin can decide for itself when and for how long to take a holiday

IPPT20250602, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Hereaeus v Vibrantz
Order following interim conference (R. 105.5 RoP)

IPPT20250602, UPC CFI, LD Hamburg, Lionra v Cisco
If a time limit provided for in the Rules of Procedure or set by the court has been missed, the party has no option but to apply for re-establishment of the previous status, provided that it is not time limits that cannot be extended (R. 9.3 RoP, R. 320 RoP). The standard of care must be interpreted autonomously (R. 320.1 RoP). The required care (“all due care”/”Sorgfalt”/ “toute la viglance nécessaire“) is generally deemed to have been exercised if the party has taken all reasonable precautions to enable it to comply with the time limit. This includes, among other things, the implementation of team functions and rules on representation. The requirements for the standard of care are further specified by the fact that compliance with the required care is equivalent to the party ultimately missing the deadline for a reason beyond its control ("outside his control"/"hors de son contrôle"). In accordance with these principles, the application for reinstatement had to be granted. The plaintiff has credibly demonstrated that it has implemented a system for monitoring and controlling deadlines that is adequate in terms of content, based on the dual control principle and monitored by the legal representative, at least on a random basis. It has credibly demonstrated that that despite the dual control principle the failure to record the deadline for submitting cost claims was inadvertently not noted. The plaintiff's legal representative cannot be accused of a lack of supervision, instruction or selection of the employees. In this respect, a further distinction must be made between the requirements for compliance with and monitoring of non-extendable deadlines and those for compliance with and monitoring of deadlines that are extendable in principle. The standard of care for non-extendable deadlines [...] os higher because failure to meet them immediately threatens a loss of rights. In contrast, the time limit at issue in the present case for initiating proceedings for a decision on costs is already extendable in principle.

IPPT20250602, UPC CoA, XSYS v Esko
The UPC has competence regarding acts committed before entry into force of the UPCA and during the opt-out of a patent (Article 32 UPCA, Article 83 UPCA). The wording of Art. 32(1) UPCA does not provide for any temporal limitation of the exclusive co.mpetence of the Court. The option to opt-out is limited to the choice of forum and does not provide, as a result of such a choice. Since Art. 32 UPCA was in effect at the time of deciding on the competence of the Court, it is not being applied retroactively to determine competence. When deciding to withdraw the opt-out, the patent proprietor chooses to bring the patent back under the (exclusive) competence of the Court. The provisions on withdrawal do not provide for a partial or limited withdrawal

IPPT20250602, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Versah v HaeNaem
Withdrawal of action against second defendant by party consent (R. 265 RoP)

IPPT20250602, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Roche v Tandem
Confirmation of settlement regarding defendants 1 and 2 (only)  (R. 365 RoP).