2025 UPC October

IPPT20251031, UPC CFI, CD Paris, IMI v Belparts
Request to join the counterclaim for infringement together with the pending infringement action rejected. (Rule 340 RoP).  Allowing the requests would still result in multiple oral hearings and multiple decisions, as a result of procedural choices made by the parties. 

IPPT20251031, UPC CoA, Sun Patent v Vivo
Request to stay first instance preliminary objection rejected. (Rule 21.2 RoP, Rule 295 RoP) Request to extend deadlines rejected. (Rule 9.3 RoP) A stay under Rule 21.2 RoP may be granted exceptionally, under the condition that an appeal against a decision on a preliminary objection has been already been filed under Rule 21.1 RoP.  And not by anticipation or speculation of such an appeal. As a general rule, it is not for the Court of Appeal to decide on the stay of proceedings pending before the first instance, unless there are exceptional circumstances . The same applies for extension of deadlines. The first instance is better informed of all the relevant circumstances of the case it also has a margin of discretion in managing the case. 
 

IPPT20251030, UPC CoA, Sun Patent v Vivo
Preliminary objection on jurisdiction and competence rejected. (Article. 32(1)(a) UPCA , Article 33 UPCA, Rule 19 RoP). UPC has jurisdiction to hear the main infringement claim, including a claim for an injunction.  (Article 32 (1 (a) UPCA). The main issue of infringement of an essential patent is undoubtedly linked to the incidental question of the FRAND offer, as a condition dependent on the main issue. The FRAND issue can be dealt with incidentally by the UPC according to consistent UPC CFI caselaw . Internal competence of first instance court (Article 33(1)(a) UPCA). The purchase and delivery of an allegedly infringing product via a French website establishing a link to France, is sufficient to establish competence. The claimant sufficiently showed a connection between all defendants and the alleged infringement. 

IPPT20251030, UPC CoA, Oerlikon v Bhagat
Security for costs already awarded in Milan LD cost decision for an amount of € 77,064.65 dismissed (Article 69(4) UPCA, R.158 RoP). The fact that, following this award of costs, Oerlikon has not yet received the corresponding payment is a matter of enforcement of the Costs decision, and does not justify a request for security of costs in proceedings before the Court of Appeal with regard to these costs already awarded. Furthermore, ordering a security for costs against Bhagat in relation to the costs incurred by Oerlikon in the CFI proceedings would, unlike the costs incurred in the appeal initiated by Bhagat, lead to providing a security for costs against the defendant in an infringement action, which is contrary to the position of this Court. Security for costs incurred by Oerlikon in the appeal proceedings awarded at 50% of the ceiling for recoverable at € 19.000.There are several facts and arguments raised by Oerlikon, and not denied by Bhagat, which give rise to a legitimate and real concern that an order for costs in the appeal may not be recoverable if the Court of Appeal decided to reject the appeal and to order Bhagat to pay the costs of the proceedings.

IPPT20251030, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Van Loon v Inverquark 
Ex-parte order for inspection and preservation of evidence granted. (Article 60 UPCA, Rule 192 ,196 RoP). It is possible that the product "InverJet," as exhibited at the Aquanale trade fair in Cologne, makes use of the technical teaching of the patent.  (Art. 60 (1) EPC).  The applicant has referred to photographs showing the external structure of the "InverJet" and used these to explain why it assumes that the features are realized. An examination of the validity of the patent is not to be carried out in the present proceedings. (Art 65 UPCA). The only time this wouldn't apply is if there are clear signs that the legal validity of the patent application is in doubt, for example, if there's been a negative decision on validity. However, there are no such indications. The fact that the respondents in the pre-trial letter and in the protective letter cast doubt on the validity of the patent application on the grounds of inadmissible extension is not sufficient . The inspection and preservation of evidence is urgent. (R. 194. 2 b) Sufficient substantiation of the infringement can only be provided by examining the product exhibited at the trade fair, which would involve taking measurements and, if necessary, opening the counterflow system. It was not possible for the applicant to carry out a test run, take detailed measurements, or dismantle the product that it obtained from a Distribution customer. The product is no longer available from the distribution customer. Order issued ex parte : demonstrable risk that evidence would be destroyed or would no longer be available.(Rule. 192.3, 197 RoP)There is a serious risk that the "InverJet" will be removed from the exhibition grounds at short notice. it would be almost impossible for the applicant to obtain evidence of what it considers to be an infringement of the patent in question by the aforementioned product. The existence of a protective letter does not preclude the issuance of an ex parte inspection order. (Rule 207 RoP, 211 RoP). The protective letter does not contain any specific reasons against the issuance of an ex parte order for viewing and inspection. Rather, it is specifically aimed at preventing the issuance of provisional measures without prior hearing , the existence of the protective letter does not in itself alter the risk of the "InverJet" being removed from the exhibition grounds. 

IPPT20251023, UPC CFI, CD Milan, bioMérieux v Labrador
Patent maintained in the form of the third Auxiliary Request (Article 65 UPCA). Appropriate to limit the revocation assessment to a maximum of different documents to challenge the novelty and to argue for non-inventiveness (R. 44 RoP, R. 104 RoP). The Court holds that the attacks not identified by bioMérieux as (most) promising do not warrant further investigation on the merits because, when the party submits a number of attacks that appear to be unmanageable by the Court in accordance with the principles of proportionality (point 3 of the preamble) and speed (point 7 of the preamble), and the same party is unable to re-module some of the attacks in such a way as to allow the Court to organise its time for the efficient management of the proceedings, it must be considered that if the (most) promising attacks, after assessment of the Court, do not affect the validity of the claim(s), the others wouldn’t have done so either. Agreed amount of legal costs will not be kept confidential (Article 58 UPCA, R. 262 RoP): In principle, the costs of the proceedings are not covered by confidentiality unless they are specifically indicative of the company's financial capacity, its commercial strategy, or the importance of the patent as a corporate asset. Since the agreement on the amount of the legal costs between parties, does not (simply) say anything about the company's financial capacity, its commercial strategy, or the importance of the patent as a corporate asset, the request of Labrador to order the agreed amount as confidential will be dismissed

IPPT20251022, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Honeywell v Sovex
Preliminary objections rejected (R. 19 RoP). International jurisdiction regarding defendant Hemtech, not domiciled in a Member State (Article 71(b)(2) Brussels). The fact that Honeywell did not (also) explicitly mention this paragraph 2 of Art. 71b Brussels I recast Regulation in the SoC, does not mean that international jurisdiction of the Court should be denied. Honeywell did state the facts and ultimate ground and principle for international jurisdiction it relies on, namely Art 7(2) Brussels I recast Regulation, […]. Honeywell also explicitly stated that it has suffered and suffers damage in Germany and other UPC Member States where the patent is valid because the Defendants have infringed and continue to infringe the patent in those States. The UPC has competence (Article 32 UPCA, Article 33 UPCA, Article 63 UPCA, Article 25 UPCA) with regard to managing directors (defendants Solvest V, Solvest VI, Solvest VII, Solvink and De Kleine Beuk) to whom infringing acts may be attributable since the action against them can be identified as an alleged action for actual or threatened infringement within the meaning of Art. 32(1)(a) UPCA. Whether these Defendants in fact commit infringing acts themselves and/or whether infringing acts of other entities are attributable to them in the sense that they are an “infringer” within the meaning of Art. 63 UPCA in conjunction with Art. 25 UPCA, is a question to be addressed in the case on the merits. It is sufficiently asserted that infringement has occurred or may occur in Germany (Article 33 UPCA). Even when applied in a restricted way, Art. 33(1)(a) UPCA provides for competence of the Local Division Mannheim in this case. The license agreement covers the territory of all of continental Europe and since the (alleged) termination of this agreement in March 2024, Defendants continue to market the allegedly infringing products. It is not required that the website Honeywell relies on is specifically directed at Germany, it suffices that the website is accessible within the territory of Germany.
 

IPPT20251022, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, Abbott Diabetes v Sinocare
Request for a provisional injunction and additional measures dismissed. Infringement not more likely than not  (R. 211 RoP). Jurisdiction because of combined/joint threatened infringement by Sinocare and Menarini in UPCA territory of the same patent in the same territory with the same product (Article 7(2) BR). Not in dispute is that Sinocare makes the iCan CGM App available on its website, specifically also for countries within UPCA territory, and that it is the manufacturer of the GlucoMen iCan and named as such in the Eudamed entry for the GlucoMen iCan and in the user guide. Furthermore, Menarini and Sinocare announced that they would cooperate in bringing the Glucomen iCan to the European market. At least there is then combined/joint threatened infringement in UPCA territory. Furthermore, this concerns alleged (threatened) infringement of the same patent in the same territory with the same product. Jurisdiction vis-à-vis Sinocare can therefore be based on Art. 7(2) BR. No unreasonable delay of 2 months to assess infringement before starting these proceedings on 27 June 2025. (R. 211.4 RoP). Claim interpretation - the feature that ‘(...) the timeline graph includes event data icons (318)’ - equivalents (Article 69 EPC). More likely than not that this feature requires the event data icons to be displayed on the timeline graph itself, i.e. in case the timeline graph screen has several panels, this feature teaches that the data icons must be displayed on the panel showing the timeline graph. It is important to note that UP 471 focuses specifically on the layout of the display for the receiver unit of a glucose monitoring system. In fact, the layout of the display is the main teaching of the patent, describing and claiming the layout of the display with/in great detail. A difference in the layout of the display is therefore meaningful and can be a key point, even though another layout may have the same function. No infringement because the event data icons are not included in the timeline graph. Interim award of costs of € 400.000. The Court considers that also the applicant in a case concerning the application for provisional measures, may be ordered to pay an interim award of costs, should this not be considered clear from R. 211.1(d). Such interpretation follows the principle of proper and fair administration of justice. 
 

IPPT20251021, UPC CFI, LD Hamburg, Occlutech v Lepu Medical
Preliminary injunction granted (Article 62(1) UPCA). Sufficient proof of threat of imminent infringement with medical device (R. 206.2(c) RoP): by obtaining (and publicly announcing) CE-mark approval for the attacked embodiments after the necessary clinical evaluation, providing “ordering information” and announcing to show-case their products on a trade fair (“device parade”) the Defendants have set the stage to market these products. Applicant has treated the matter with the necessary urgency. It is not relevant at which point the Applicant gained general knowledge of the attacked embodiments and their appearance as long as their marketing in the European Union could not have been considered imminent due to lacking the EU certification of conformity (CE-mark). As this CE-mark approval is, as stated above, a prerequisite for legally marketing a medical device in the European Union, any knowledge of the Applicant regarding the attacked embodiments prior to this date is not relevant. Unfounded request for security for costs (R. 352.1 RoP). The information provided by the Defendants does not enable the Court to assess any possible damage, which the Applicant may be liable to bear in the event that the Court revokes the order for provisional measures.

IPPT20251021, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, Amycell
Permanent injunction by default judgement in infringement action, following preliminary measures of 31 July 2024 and appeal of 28 November 2025. Patent valid and infringed. (Article 25 UPCA) Earlier preliminary measures upheld by order of a permanent injunction, with the addition that total penalty be maximised ; (Art. 63 UPCA , Article 34 UPCA).The Court has international jurisdiction to hear the infringement Action (Art. 7.2 Brussels Regulation) because the alleged infringement by the Polish Defendant also takes place in the Netherlands. 
Re – establishment of rights denied after failing to submit the Statement of Defense on time by a default decision in order dated April 1 2025.  (Rule 320 RoP, Rule 355 RoP).The applications filed by the Defendant after the Order was issued, are not admitted and the request to reverse the Order with these applications is dismissed. In the Order the termination of the Action with a decision by default was announced. The fact that some time passes between the issuing of the Order, does not change this. The default decision only confirms the injunction that is already in place pursuant to the PM Order; it does not change the factual and legal situation, apart from replacing a provisional by a permanent injunction. Decision by Default  (Rule 355 RoP).The Court understands a decision by default under R.355.2 RoP to mean that in a default situation, it must assess whether the facts are sufficiently substantiated by evidence and whether the requested measures and orders are not prima facie unlawful or unfounded. The grounds for the injunction and measures that Claimant seeks in the Action, are the same as those it relied on in the PM proceedings ; Patent is therefore valid and infringed. the SoC largely reflects the facts and legal arguments Claimant submitted in the PM proceedings. In the PM proceedings the Court (provisionally) considered that the patent is more likely that not to be valid and infringed. The Court has no reason to assume in these proceedings on the merits, also given that there is no relevant defence to be considered, otherwise. The following measures requested are deemed disproportionate pursuant to Article 64(4) UPCA, The request of delivering up so as to remove and prevent entry into or movement within the channels of commerce is considered superfluous in view of the requested destruction . The request that the destruction of mushrooms is documented by the Defendant and in addition that the Claimant is given the opportunity to watch the destruction, is superfluous. The order will be drafted to clarify that documentation is only necessary in case Claimant decides not to attend the destruction. Damages (Article. 68 UPCA, Rule. 118 RoP). Defendant liable for damages  due to the infringement of the patent in the relevant UPC states.  In view of the absence of a defence, the Court establishes that Defendant knowingly infringed or at least had reasonable grounds to know that he would infringe the patent 

IPPT20251020, UPC CFI, CD Paris, Meril v Edwards Lifesciences
Patent maintained in amended form (Article 65 UPCA), direct infringement (Article 25 UPCA). No stay infringement action because of pending opposition proceedings (R. 295(a) RoP) Not requested by the parties; the proceedings are already at an advanced stage (oral hearing imminent),  would have the effect of postponing the decision on the infringement action – which is also ready to be decided – thereby frustrating the patent proprietor's interest in a swift protection of its exclusive right. Late filed ground of invalidity (R. 44 RoP) the issue concerning the added matter in claim 7 should have [been] filed with the statement for revocation as it constitutes a new and autonomous line of attack and, therefore, it must be excluded from the subject-matter of the proceedings. No late filed arguments in Rejoinder to the Reply to the Defence for revocation regarding skilled person and claim construction (R. 52 RoP). A generous standard is to be applied. Defendant allowed, in light of the principle of fairness, to raise new arguments, facts, and documents, insofar as they are considered capable of supporting their stances, which were already timely taken and disputed by the claimant. The admissibility of these late filed arguments extends also to arguments that, while not constituting a direct response to the defendant’s arguments, are closely related to them. No late filed new evidence: to contrast and react to arguments raised in the Defence to revocation (R. 44 RoP, R. 51 RoP) following the defence raised by the defendant, the claimant may need to produce new evidence which disputes the facts alleged by the claimant or the probative value of the evidence already filed in Court. Similarly, the defendant may submit new evidence in reaction to facts or evidence produced by the claimant in its reply. Claim construction (Article 69 EPC).Claimants’ interpretation of “outer skirt”  is inconsistent with the only detailed embodiment disclosed in the patent, wherein – see in particular Fig. 42 and para. [0063] – the suture line between the outer skirt (18) and the inner skirt (16) appears located (slightly) within the inner space defined by the frame. The definition of “slack” as implying excess material is disclosed in the patent and consistent with the general meaning of the term. Invalidity because of added subject matter in claim 4, 7 and 8 (Article 76(1) EPC, Article 138(1)(c) EPC) the invalidity ground based upon Art. 76 (1) ‘EPC’ is considered well founded and the intermediate generalization concerning the omission of the claimed valve being a “heart” one unallowable. Accordingly, the patent cannot be maintained in the form as granted. Filing of 17 Auxiliary Requests not ‘unreasonable’ (R. 30 RoP) considering the complexity of the case (in particular, the number of lines of attacks to the patent). The lack of a consistent interpretation of the expression ‘reasonable in number’ also suggests a less strict interpretation of this relevant provision. Inventive step (Article 56 EPC) For the assessment of the inventive step, a “holistic approach” – that is, a broader way of assessing non-obviousness by considering the invention as a whole, rather than just focusing upon isolated distinguishing features – appears, in general, to be more appropriate. Injunction is the normal remedy to restrain future infringements, but court has discretionary power to where it would be disproportionate or would be unreasonably detrimental to the public interest, including the interests of third parties (Article 63 UPCA, Article 3 Enforcement Directive).To justify a public interest in the availability of the infringing embodiment, it is essential to demonstrate that this is the sole available treatment method or that it represents an improvement upon a known treatment method, resulting in a notable enhancement in patient care. Therefore, excluding a certain product from the range of those available to doctors for the performance of certain procedures does not engage in itself a relevant public interest, because it does not necessarily carry with it the implication that, had the choice not been available, all the patients could not have been treated adequately with the remaining products.  
 

IPPT20251017, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, HP v Rentmeister
Preliminary Injunction granted (Article 62 UPCA, Rule 211 RoP, Rule 209 RoP). The application for provisional measures can be decided on the applicant’s submissions by a regular order in the PI proceedings . If the defendant does not lodge an objection within the time period set by the Court or decides not to substantiate its objection for reasons outside of the court proceedings, A decision by default  is not to be considered. (Rule 355.1(a) RoP). It is up to the defendant to decide whether to accept the invitation and lodge an objection. If the defendant declines the invitation, there is no reason to grant him the advantages of a decision by default.  It is more likely than not that the patent in suit is infringed by the offer and distribution of the challenged embodiments I by Defendant 1 (Rule 211.2 RoP).  On summary examination, the challenged embodiments I make direct and literal use of the technical teaching of the respective claim 13 of the patent in suit. Partial withdrawal of applicant’s claims for an interim award of costs allowed. (Rule 265 RoP , Article 69 UPCA)
 

IPPT20251017, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, Abbott Diabetes v Sinocare
Provisional injunction granted for UPC territory in view of the likelihood of infringement and validity (Article 62 UPCA, Article 25 UPCA, Article 34 UPCA,  R. 211(1)(b) RoP , Rule 206 RoP). Novelty (Article 54 EPC): None of the prior art documents disclose a single separate sensor assembly comprising all the features of claim 1. The prior art does not disclose a sharp as part of a sensor assembly as required by claim 1 of the patent. The sharp in the prior art is part of a separate sub-assembly . Inventive step (Article 56 EPC): It is not apparent how the skilled person, starting from any of the arrangements disclosed in the Dexcom patent family, would modify the parts disclosed therein to arrive at the sensor assembly of claim 1 and at the kit of claim 15 of the patent .There is no incentive to bring the sharp together with the other features required by claim 1 of the patent to yield the sensor assembly according to claim 1 prior to insertion, ensuring an easy-to use application of the on-body device. This would require a completely different insertion procedure into the user’s skin, with differently designed components, which is not suggested in the prior art at hand. In addition, the role of the anisotropic zebra is not disclosed, especially not as a seal enclosing the contacts portion of the sensor. Infringement (Article 25 UPCA): More likely than not that Defendants infringe the patent with their GlucoMen iCan. Defendants assert that the GlucoMen iCan does not use features 1.4 and 1.6 of the patent . These non-infringement arguments (only) hold if the limited interpretation of these features proposed by Defendants were followed. In view of the correct claim interpretation discussed above, these features are also met in the GlucoMen iCan. It is not disputed that features 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 and 1.5 are also present. The provisionally established infringement warrants a generally worded injunction. (Rule. 211 RoP) . Abbott explained convincingly that an injunction is necessary and urgent at this moment to avoid Defendants from (further) entering the reimbursement market and to avoid further sales via ‘cash pay’. A provisional injunction is deemed proportionate in view of the infringement. Defendants’ request to make the injunction subject to security is dismissed as is it not argued or demonstrated that there is a risk that Abbott will not or is unable to pay Defendants’ damages.The request to declare that the GlucoMen iCan is considered “goods suspected of infringing an intellectual property right”, is dismissed. Whatever the merits, such declaration is not possible as a provisional measure.
 

IPPT20251017, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Onward Medical v Niche Biomedical 
Provisional measures rejected. (Article 62 UPCA, Rule 206 RoP) . Auxiliary requests seeking provisional measures on amended versions of the patent rejected .(Rule 211 RoP, Rule 30 RoP). In view of the prior art, there are sufficient doubts as to whether claim 1 of the patent can be considered new and patentable under Article 54 EPC. Prior art “Yoo“ discloses a neuromodulation system for treating patients , preprogrammed stimulation data with a spatial component , and also preprogrammed stimulation patterns with spatial and temporal components. Amendment of claim wording : Alternative versions of claims are not subject to examination in injunction proceedings. Auxilliary requests in which, proceedings for interim relief are asserted on an alternative claim version that deviates from the granted version, to counter doubts about validity are generally to be rejected. If the patent proprietor considers it necessary to amend the wording of the claims of a patent, it means that the patent in its granted form is probably not valid. In this case, the court cannot normally be convinced of the validity of the patent in its granted form, which is solely decisive for the proceedings under Art. 62 UPCA . The question of whether a patent can remain valid in an amended version only arises, in the context of an action for revocation or a counterclaim for revocation, where requests for amendment of the patent are made pursuant to Rule 30 of the Rules of Procedure. Rule 30 is not applicable in proceedings for interim measures under Article 62 UPCA 

IPPT20251017, UPC CFI, LD Munich, AX Wireless v Xiaomi 
Extension of deadlines for the alignment of deadlines for Chinese and EU Defendants allowed. (Rule. 9.3(a) RoP) 

IPPT20251016, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, HP v Zuhai and Rentmeister
Good service of application for provisional measures upon Chinese defendant: credible demonstration of correct address (R. 275.2 RoP, R. 209.1(a) RoP). According to its wording, R. 275.2 RoP concerns the service of the statement of claim and, therefore, the proceedings on the merits. However, given the urgent nature of the application for provisional measures, the option to consider the steps already taken as good service must apply all the more so for the Defendant’s information about the application for provisional measures and its invitation to lodge an objection (R. 209.1(a) RoP). Applicant has sufficiently demonstrated that the provided address is correct. However, the Chinese authorities did not serve the application for provisional measures to this address. Instead, three and a half months after they had received the documents for service via the website provided by the Chinese authorities for this purpose, they only responded to an inquiry by stating without further explanation that the respondent did not exist at the provided address. This justifies considering the steps taken so far as proper service.
 

IPPT20251016, UPC CFI, CD Milan, Herbert Smith v Insulet & Eoflow 
Request for access to a redacted copy of Insulet Corporation's application granted. (Rule 262. (1)(b) RoP). Rule 262. (1)(b) RoP interpreted as being broadly aimed at the general disclosure of case documents and submissions, provided that the public interest is substantiated and the parties to the proceedings are not put at risk by such disclosure. The JR must, therefore, assess whether the public requesting access to the documents has a justified interest in accessing them. The "instrument" must not be used for purposes that exceed the reasons on which the request is based. If the Court did not mention certain documents in its final decision, they are also not useful to parties for a better understanding of the proceedings and access to them would be disproportionate and unreasonable.

IPPT20251015, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Leap Tools v Wizart 
Service of the Statement of claim at an alternative place permitted. (Rule. 275.1 RoP). There is a good reason to authorise service at the CEO’s business address in Poland, following 2 failed service attempts. 

IPPT20251015, UPC CFI, CD Milan, Insulet v EOFLow
Interim costs decision of CD Milan dated 22 July 2025 confirmed as final and binding decision. (Rule 150 RoP, Rule 151 RoP, Article 69 UPCA). Party requesting cost compensation must indicate exactly which cost item it is requesting payment for to allow the judge to carry out the review provided for in Rule 156 RoP  and Article 69 UPCA. Party must make a choice: submit the costs to the Court or keep them confidential and waive payment. Obscured costs cannot be settled. Costs relating to enforcement do not fall within the scope of Rule 151 RoP and must be excluded (Rule 151 RoP) Enforcement costs falls outside the jurisdiction of the UPC.  Rule 150 RoP does not allow for the compensation of costs incurred after the publication of the decision.
 

IPPT20251014, UPC CFI LD Düsseldorf, Wonderland v Cybex
Review of order confirms denial of the Claimant’s application for leave to amend the claim. (Rule 333.1 RoP, Rule 263 RoP). No arguments presented that would lead the Panel to reach a different conclusion . The Claimant seeks to claim infringement by equivalence for multiple features, this does not alter the nature or scope of the dispute and does not constitute an amendment of the case. 

IPPT20251014, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Ona v Ekahau
Request for Further exchanges of written pleadings dismissed. Written proceedings closed. (Rule 35 RoP, Rule 36 RoP) . late filed requests relating to indirect infringement and relating to the amended form of the patent concerning indirect infringement are not admissible and not taken into account. (Article. 26 UPCA).
 

IPPT20251014, UPC CoA, Kodak v Fujifilm
Order for the payment of € 100.000 set aside for lack of legal basis (R. 354.4 RoP). Any order for the payment of a penalty sum due to the non-compliance of any order, requires a prior order in which the order that has not been complied with was reinforced with the possibility of a penalty payment. Such a penalty order was requested by Fujifilm, but rejected by the LDM. Penalty order for a possible future non-compliance by Kodak is possible and it is not relevant in this respect that Fujifilm in its Statement of claim did not request a penalty order in relation to the orders for destruction, recall and removal from the channels of commerce. Generally on penalty orders (R. 354.3 and 354.4 RoP). Generally included in order or decision on the merits as this enhances legal certainty. May be requested later without requiring an appeal. Penalty amount to be set by the Court and should be sufficiently deterrent to be coercive and within reasonable limits to be appropriate. Penalty order must specify upon which occurrence a penalty may be forfeited, may set a maximum, which may be increased later, should generally specify the time period for compliance. Suggested penalty must be included in the application. Any order to pay a penalty must be based on a prior penalty order having been made. Burden of proof that a penalty reinforced order has been fully and timely complied with lies with the defendant, since the evidence concerns information within the defendant’s own sphere which is not accessible to the claimant. Confidentiality issues: if the defendant can reasonably foresee that the orders and evidence may require it to disclose confidential information, this should be raised by the defendant during the proceedings on the merits, so that where necessary in the order or decision appropriate measures can be taken to protect such confidential information. Although it would still be possible to file a confidentiality request thereafter, confidentiality issues generally do not stay the time period set for compliance with a penalty reinforced order. Time period for compliance starts upon service of the order or decision or upon notification (R. 118.8 RoP). Translation only required from the orders that the claimant actually wishes to enforce to allow the enforcing authority (e.g. the bailiff) to understand what it needs to enforce (R. 118.8 RoP). No need to serve enforcement notice on the defendant other than via upload in CMS.

IPPT20251013, UPC CFI, LD Paris, Vivo v Sun 
Request to postpone filing of the statement of defence under R. 19.6 RoP denied. No exceptional circumstances to slow down pace of main proceeding. 

IPPT20251013, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Ona v Ekahau
Panel review of a Judge Rapporteur order on the holding of an interim conference: Request to hold interim conference dismissed. (Rule 333 RoP, R.105 RoP). No scope for a review : Order contains a declaration of intent and does not stipulate that there will be no interim conference. Claimant seeks a different outcome and is not alleging misuse of discretion. As the decision to hold an interim conference lies at the discretion of the Presiding Judge, acting on behalf of the Judge-Rapporteur, it is questionable whether the Panel can make the order instead of the Judge-Rapporteur, as the suggestion to conduct an interim conference is based on alleged new circumstances. No need to discuss the Claimant´s brief which was filed outside of any case management regime and time periods set by the Court. The Claimant cannot force the Court to schedule an interim conference by filing additional briefs and claiming them as reason for further oral discussion.

IPPT20251010, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Motorola v Asustek
Counterclaim for revocation of a divisional patent succesful , on grounds of the invalidity of claims; infringement action dismissed. (Article 138 EPC , Rule 25 RoP, Article 25 UPCA). Inadmissible extension of the subject matter of claims 1 and 11. The parent application does not disclose, either explicitly or implicitly, the features of a first and second reconfiguration message as they appear cumulatively in claims 1 and 11. The essential feature of the patent is not found in claims 1 and 11, either literally or in essence.

IPPT20251010, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, HL Display v Black Sheep Retail
(in)direct patent infringement (Article 25 UPCA); Revocation dismissed (Article 65 UPCA). Counterclaim for declaration of non-infringement inadmissible in the absence of a prior assertion of infringement with respect to Product 2. Such assertion may not be deduced from the mere fact that the patent was invoked with respect to a different product (R. 61.1 RoP). The relevant date here when all requirements of R.61.1 (a) and (b) should be fulfilled, is the launch of the counterclaim. Claim construction (Article 69 EPC). Claim not limited to one specific embodiment, in the absence of clear indications to the contrary. For example, under the section ‘detailed description of embodiments’ (plural) in the patent, par. [0047], clearly describes several embodiments. No added matter (Article 138(1)(c) EPC). Omission of the feature of a friction member, which has no inextricable link with the rest of the features of claim 1, does not add matter. Inventive step (Article 56 EPC). BSRP has not showed any hint in the prior art given to the skilled person towards the claimed solution and is not able to explain why the skilled person would make such modification. Infringement by equivalence as the protrusion is technically equivalent (Article 2, Interpretation Protocol). Also in case BSRP were followed and one would draw the borderline between the first and second arm differently so that the protrusion/rail that contains a stop surface in the BSRP Product is considered to be located on the second arm (see the Court’s drawings in 11.4.3), as BSRP maintains, this would amount to infringement by equivalence as the protrusion is technically equivalent. (In)direct infringement (Article 25 UPCA, Article 26 UPCA). When the shelf accessory and rear device are sold together this constitutes direct infringement. The fact that they are not sold in an assembled state, does not alter this view as they are nonetheless sold together as the system of claim 1. As to the shelf accessory or rear securing device sold separately, the Court opines that HL Display has sufficiently substantiated that both the shelf accessory and the rear securing device of the BSRP Product are means relating to essential elements of the invention. BSRP also does not deny that it knew or should have known that those means are suitable and intended for putting the invention of EP 351 into effect.  
 

IPPT20251010, UPC CFI, CD Munich, Wirplast v Vilpe
Orders following interim conference (Rule 105 RoP.) Defendant allowed to re-order auxiliary requests. Warning letter submitted as attachment to Claimant´s Reply admitted into proceedings. 

IPPT20251009, UPC CoA, Belkin v Philips
Rectification of the Court’s own motion of obvious slip in decision (R. 353 RoP,)

IPPT20251007, UPC CFI, LD Milan, Hypertherm v TecMo
Final decision order adopted on recommendation of the judge rapporteur. No need to adjudicate on the claims, proceedings dismissed.
(Rule 363 RoP, Rule 360 RoP, Rule 220 (1) (a) RoP)
 

IPPT20251007, UPC CFI, LD Brussels, Cretes v Hyler
Settlement confirmed by the Court (R. 365.1 RoP). 

IPPT20251006, UPC CoA, Roku v Dolby and Sun Patent
Alleged invalidity of the rules on jurisdiction of Article 31 UPCA in conjunction with Article 71a of the Brussels regulation are a ground for a Preliminary objection (R. 19.1 RoP). Insofar as a violation of Article 47(2) of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 6 of the ECHR due to the absence of a Central Division based in London does not concern any of the grounds for opposition listed in Rule 19.1 RoP, an opposition based on this is not admissible. “Established by law” in Article 6(1) ECHR is to prevent the organisation of the judicial system from being left to the discretion of the executive and to ensure that this area is regulated by a law enacted by the legislature in accordance with the rules governing the exercise of its powers. Administrative Committee was authorized to provide that Milan should replace London as a division of the Central Division (Article 87(2) UPCA).The fact that the Convention does not provide for any power of amendment if the implementation of the UPCA proves impossible is due to an unintended regulatory gap. Article 87(2) of the UPCA serves the purpose of ensuring that there are no obstacles to the implementation of the Convention. Roku unsuccessfully argues that the change in the court structure, which is based on a factual impossibility, is a fundamental change that requires democratically legitimised decisions by the contracting member states. The involvement of the contracting member states is sufficiently ensured by analogy on the basis of the right of veto in Article 87(3) UPCA.

IPPT20251003, UPC CoA, Belkin v Philips
“Offer” within the meaning of Article 25(a) UPCA is to be understood in the economic sense and is not based on the legal understanding of a binding contractual offer. “Infringer”: the mere position of managing director does not make the managing director and accomplice or accessory to a patent infringement by the company (Article 63 UPCA, Article 25 UPCA). The ordering of remedial measures such as recall, removal from distribution channels and destruction in accordance with Art. 64(2)(b), (d) and (e) UPCA is the norm. The infringer bears the burden of proof and must demonstrate that the measures are disproportionate. Time limit for remedial measures to be set in the decision or final order (R. 118 RoP). If no time limit is set in the final order or decision, it is up to the plaintiff to set a time limit for the defendant to take the aforementioned remedial measures by notifying the defendant of the intention to enforce the order in accordance with R. 118.8 RoP..

IPPT20251002, UPC CoA, expert e-Commerce v Seoul Viosys
Revocation because of added matter (Article 138(1)(c) EPC). An inadmissible extension of the subject matter occurs if the subject matter of the granted claim extends beyond the content of the application as originally filed. In order to determine this, the court must first ascertain what information a person skilled in the art would immediately and unambiguously derive from the entirety of the application as filed, based on an objective assessment and with reference to the filing date, using their general technical knowledge. In this context, subject matter disclosed implicitly must also be regarded as part of the content, i.e. subject matter that clearly and unambiguously follows from what is expressly stated. If, as in this case, the patent has been derived from a divisional application, this requirement applies to each earlier application. 

IPPT20251002, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Centripetal Limited v Palo Alto Networks
Review proceedings concerning an ex–parte order (Sasie order) for preservation of evidence. (Rule 197 RoP). Order dated 3 June 2025, in the amended form of Order dated 9 July 2025 revoked for confidentiality measures. The inspection is not limited to data being physically stored at the premises , it also extends to data which is accessible from there as long as such access is available as part of the ordinary business being carried out at such a location. A defendant cannot be compelled to bring a physical item which is not there yet , to the inspected premises , even though the applicant thought it was there. Inspection had been executed on a solid and sound ex ante presumption, that the item to be inspected may well be found at the location detailed in the order, but it turned out upon execution that the item was not there. The legal and factual situation after granting the Defendant its right to be heard justifies a revocation of the Saisie order as it could not have been granted, if these circumstances had been taken into consideration beforehand. It is based on a manifestly wrong construction of R. 192.3 RoP to believe that the duty to inform the Court of all relevant facts was a one-off duty and that there was no reason to update the Court on new facts and arguments, which might still influence the Court in its decision to grant or not to grant the Saisie order. 
 

IPPT20251002, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Hurom v NUC Electronics
Preliminary objection admissible (R. 19.7 RoP) due to the primacy of Union law, the objections against international jurisdiction are not precluded by R. 19.7 RoP.  The court has jurisdiction to hear the case against the Korean defendant regarding Poland, Spain and the United Kingdom in accordance with Art. 71b (2), Art. 7 (2) Brussels Ia Reg.) Defendant infringes upon the patent-in-suit in Poland, Spain and the United Kingdom (Article 25 UPCA)  by shipping attacked embodiments to Poland, Spain and the United Kingdom via its subsidiary NUC Electronics Europe GmbH and its distributor Warmcook, which both were shipping attacked embodiments to Poland, Spain and the United Kingdom and have their place of business in and acting from the UPC territory.  Warmcook’s French web page from the French web shop states in general terms that Warmcook ships products to all EU member states and the United Kingdom (alongside Switzerland and French overseas territories). The fact that Warmcook’s website uses the French language and Euro as currency does not alter the fact that the website itself states shipments to said countries outside France. NUC Electronics Europe GmbH is undisputedly the European sales branch of defendant, and the importer according to the CE mark and the equivalent UK mark on the nameplate of the test purchase (exhibit P14), designating NUC Electronics Europe GmbH as the relevant importer for the EU and the UK respectively. Jurisdiction over non-EU defendant for infringement in the EU member states Poland and Spain as well as in the Non-EU member state United Kingdom follows from Art. 71b (2), Art. 7 (2) Brussels Ia Reg. Since the UPC as a common court has no national law within the meaning of Art. 6 Brussels Ia Reg., Art. 71b (2) Brussels Ia Reg. stipulates that, where a defendant is not domiciled in a member state of the European Union, and the regulation does not otherwise confer jurisdiction over him, Chapter II of the Brussels Ia Reg. (i.e. Art. 4 to 35) shall apply as appropriate regardless of defendant’s domicile. The necessary international element of the legal relationship in question can result from its link to another EU member state or to a third state.  The ECJ’s ruling in BSGH Hausgeräte also applies in cases in which jurisdiction follows from article 7(2) BR.  Substantive scope of Article 7(2) BR. The place of the event giving rise to the damage, as far as a registered intellectual property right is concerned, is not restricted to the country in which the right is registered. The proximity to the place where the action controlling the events takes place typically facilitates the gathering of evidence and the conduct of proceedings. The option to choose the place where the acts are committed that give rise to the damage to bring an action is not excluded. The UPC has jurisdiction for acts committed before the UPCA’s entry into force on 1 June 2023 (Article 32(1) UPCA). The competence of the Local Division Mannheim follows from Art. 33 (1) (a), sentence 3 UPCA. Claimant states an infringement inter alia in Germany.

IPPT20251002, UPC CFI, LD Dusseldorf, Headwater v Samsung
Rectification of decision pursuant to R. 353 RoP . On its own motion, the Court rectifies paragraph 6 of the order in the decision of 29 September 2025 because it contains a clerical error and a calculation error. 
 

IPPT20251001, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Robert Bosch v Grizzly Tools

Oppositions challenging jurisdiction of the UPC dismissed , No appeal permitted. (Article 4(1) , Article 63(1) , Art. 71b (1) Brussels Regulation). For establishing international jurisdiction under Article 4(1) of the Brussels  Regulation, it is sufficient to demonstrate that the defendant is domiciled within the meaning of that provision, possibly in conjunction with Article 63(1) of the Brussels Regulation, in the EU Member State of the court seised. In the case of a joint court of EU Member States, Art. 71b (1) Brussels  Regulation suffices to demonstrate that the seat is in one of the states of establishment of the joint court. No decision on the obligation to bear the associated costs is necessary as the objection pursuant to Rule 19 RoP is an internal procedural remedy and cannot bring about a decision on the merits. 

IPPT20251001, UPC CoA, Bruker v 10x Genomics
A party submitting a request to lay open books for the purpose of determining the amount of compensation pursuant to R. 213.2 RoP is liable for both the fixed fee and the value-based fee for the determination of damages (R. 132 RoP). Fees for compensation are not included in fees for provisional measures; they are separate proceedings. Combining claims does not reduce fees, including liability and quantum requests in one application does not remove or reduce the fee obligation

IPPT20251001, UPC CFI, LD Paris, Guardant Health v Sophia Genetics
Summons issued to parties for an oral hearing  (R. 210.1 RoP) . Deadlines set for filing documents (Rule 209.1)

IPPT20251001, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Hoffmann-La Roche v Menarini
Confidentiality club (R.262A RoP ) for information regarding manufacturing process of challenged embodiments, negotiations with manufacturer, prices, expected profits and written testimony.