2025 UPC September

IPPT20250930, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, InterDigital v Amazon
Confidentiality club granted (Rule. 262A RoP) to the Respondents for information and attachments marked as confidential in the application. 

IPPT20250930, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Headwater v Samsung
Joint withdrawal of the counterclaim for revocation allowed. (Rule. 265 RoP) 

IPPT20250929, UPC LD Düsseldorf, Headwater v Samsung
Withdrawal of action by party consent (R. 265 RoP)

IPPT20250926, UPC LD Düsseldorf, Headwater v Samsung
Withdrawal of action by party consent (R. 265 RoP)

IPPT20250926, UPC CFI, LD Dusseldorf, Labrador v bioMerieux
Order of summons for an open public oral hearing (R. 108 RoP, R. 115 RoP).

IPPT20250924, UPC CoA, BEGA v Washtower

Extension of period for appeal granted (R. 9.3 lit. (a) RoP). A period of three days is granted to account for busy schedules of the representatives. The impugned order is enforceable during appeal , there is no need to hear the respondents regarding the request for time extension.

IPPT20250923, UPC CoA, Apple v Asustek
Request to intervene on appeal against decision granting confidentiality regime granted ( R. 313 RoP) Intervener has a legal interest in an order sought by one of the parties and it has a direct and present interest in the outcome of the appeals against the panel review orders, as the confidential information at issue includes information on agreements between itself and one of the parties.

IPPT20250923, UPC CFI, CD Paris, IMI Hydronic v Belparts
Request to join proceedings not granted, parties invited to comment and reformulate the request within 10 days (Article 33 UPCA, Rule 340 RoP). Hearing the counterclaim for infringement and the infringement actions together - will still result in more than one action, as the revocation action and the counterclaim for revocation are not included in the request .A joinder cannot result in the referral of an action to another division of the Court of First Instance beyond the possibilities provided for referral of actions in Art. 33 UPCA . The exceptions regarding the hearing of infringement actions and revocation actions pursuant to Art. 33 (3), (4) UPCA, do not apply. 

IPPT20250922, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Otec v Steros
Ex parte order for inspection and preservation of evidence granted. (Art. 60 UPCA, Rule. 194 (d), 196, 197, 199 RoP). Credible demonstration that the patent may be infringed. (Article 60 (1) UPCA). The product, as exhibited at the EMO Hannover trade fair, makes use of the technical teaching of the patent. All features of the patent are realized in the "DLyte PRO500 Automated Cell" product. The application is urgent (R. 194. 2 b), c), 197 R.P.). There exists a serious risk that the product will be removed from the exhibition grounds at short notice. Due to special market conditions, it would be almost impossible for the applicant to obtain evidence of the infringement of the of the patent. Expert appointed to carry out the measures with the assistance of a bailiff. (Rule 196.4, .5 RoP). An order of security would unreasonably delay the preservation of evidence and inspection, considering the short duration of the trade show. 

IPPT20250918, UPC CFI LD Dusseldorf, Atlas Global v TP-Link
Application for stay of proceedings granted (Rule  295 RoP).  Both parties agree to stay all associated  proceedings against the defendant.
 

IPPT20250918, UPC CFI, President, Oppo v Crystal Clear Codec
Language of the proceedings changed to the language in which the patent was granted, namely English with the consent of both parties. (Article 49(5) UPCA, R. 323 RoP) 

IPPT20250917, UPC CFI LD Paris, Merz v Viatris Sante
Request to order submission  of shorter summary  of objection granted (R.9 RoP). In light of the 30 page application for provisional measures, the 470 objection was excessive. A limit of 70 pages was set

IPPT20250917, UPC CFI LD The Hague, Washtower v Wasombouw
As defendants indicated that service may be performed electronically using the email address of the registered representative […] electronic service of the final order is to proceed pursuant to R. 276.1 juncto R. 271.1.c RoP and Art. 19.1.b Service Regulation. 

IPPT20250917, UPC CFI LD Dusseldorf, InterDigital v Disney
Early decision taken to have joint hearing for infringement and revocation (R. 37.2 RoP and Art. 33(3) UPCA). In the interest of efficiency and to ensure uniform interpretation of the patent it was decided that bifurcation was not in the best interests of the parties
 

IPPT20250916, UPC CoA, Bodycap v EPO
No interlocutory revision of decision of the EPO to reject a request for unitary effect. An expedited action against a decision of the Office under Rule 97(1) RoP, falls under the exception set out in Rule 85(2) RoP. Compliance with the time limit under Rule 7(3) UPR is mandatory and excluded from re-establishment of rights. A proprietor of a European patent who has not complied with this period cannot have their rights reinstated, regardless of the reasons for failing to observe the said time limit.

IPPT20250916, UPC CFI LD Mannheim, Huawei v MediaTek
Order to produce confidential information regarding licence agreements.  (Rule 190. RoP, Article 59 UPCA ) - Claimant to submit confidential licence agreements with passages redacted insofar as the claimant does not refer to these passages for its factual allegations and legal argumentation.  Further orders pursuant to confidential information to be issued (R. 262A RoP). There is no fear of any loss of secret information, since according to the procedure established in the CFI, the unedited versions of the respective pleadings will only be released after a provisional secrecy protection order has been issued that offers sufficient protection.

IPPT20250915, UPC CFI LD Munich, Sanofi v Accord
Decisions taken at the interim conference (Rule 105.5 RoP). Parties granted time to comment on the pending decision from the EPO BoA decision. All counterclaims tobe heard together, the infringement actions to be heard separately. The experts will be heard regarding their written submissions and will be answering questions formulated by the Judge Rapporteur.

IPPT20250912, UPC CFI LD Mannheim, bellissa HAAS v Windhager
Patent valid and infringed Art. 25(a) UPCA.
It is irrelevant for direct patent infringement that the components are offered in a non-assembled state if the product is such that its components can be assembled in a simple manner at the place of use of the product without the addition of further objects. The offering or supplying of all components already constitutes direct patent infringement. The individual sale of coordinated components constitutes direct infringement if the product consists of at least two identical, coordinated components which are designed to be assembled into the patent-protected product in accordance with the patent without the addition of further items.  An injunction also covers such products. Offering (Art. 25(a) UPCA) Whether an act constitutes an offer depends on the explanatory value to be attributed to it, which is to be determined from the objective point of view of the relevant public. Embodiments advertised individually in close-up does not preclude an offer. It does not follow that the offer would be limited to the sale of individual lawn and design edges. It follows that several lawn and design edgings are offered for assembly by the customer. Emphasis that the variable lawn and design edges are easy to install and can be extended as required and offer individual design options are sufficient to explain that the products are not offered individually. 
 

IPPT20250912, UPC CFI LD Dusseldorf, Eyesmatch v Microsoft
Withdrawal of action by party consent (R. 265 RoP)

IPPT20250912, UPC CFI LD Düsseldorf, Trumpf v IPG Laser II
Subsequent requests for amendment of the patent rejected. (Rule 30(2) RoP). Application not sufficient to enable court’s to exercise discretion. Plaintiff's reasoning limited to general statements.The Plaintiff did not establish a connection between the amendments made in the auxiliary motions and specific arguments made by the defendant in the proceedings. The court was unable to assess whether the admission of the further auxiliary motions complies with the principles of proportionality, flexibility, fairness, and equity. Leave to file a further pleading dismissed. (Rule 36 RoP). In view of the lack of admission of the further auxiliary requests pursuant to, there is no basis for the desired introduction of coordinated requests in the infringement proceedings.

IPPT20250912, UPC CFI LD Düsseldorf, Trumpf v IPG Laser - I
Arguments raised in the counterclaim that do not relate to the counterclaim or application to amend the patent are to be disregarded (R. 9.2 RoP, R. 36 RoP). Even if an application for the admission of further pleadings pursuant to R. 36 RoP may be made until the conclusion of the written procedure, the court may take into account the timing of such an application in the written procedure.

IPPT20250912, UPC CFI , President, HMD Global v Huawei
Language of the proceedings changed to the language of the patent (English) (Article 49 (5) UPCA & R. 323(1) RoP). The nationality of the judges composing the panel is in principle not a relevant factor either, especially in the context of the requested change from German to English which is used by all UPC judges to communicate among themselves. In the event that the balance of interests is equal, the interests of the defendants will prevail.

IPPT20250912, UPC CFI LD Mannheim, Total Semiconductor v Texas Instruments

Application for security for costs confirmed. (R. 158 RoP) . Request to review order rejected (R. 333 RoP) Leave to appeal refused. Costs incurred by the Defendants likely to reach the confirmed amount given that the proceedings at hand are complex. It is not apparent that the amount of the security would unreasonably hinder the Claimant in the enforcement of its patent. Since the request for security for costs is successful, the Defendants’ 2 and 3 request pursuant to R. 190 RoP is void of purpose.

IPPT20250911, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Huawei v MediaTek
Confidentiality request  rejected insofar as protection is sought for the name of a witness (R.262A RoP). Request to expand confidentiality club for the current  round of pleadings rejected due to impracticality as it would become difficult for persons involved to comply with confidentiality orders.

IPPT20250911, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, Washtower v Wasombouw
Preliminary injunction for direct infringement (Article 25 UPCA, Article 62 UPCA, R. 211 RoP), order to communicate information (Article 67 UPCA), recall (Article 64(2)(b) UPCA )and cost award (Article 69 UPCA). Patent more likely than not valid. No added matter (Article 123(2) EPC):  Inventive step (Article 56 EPC)  Claim interpretation, equivalence and infringement (Article 69 EPC, Article 2 Protocol) A. Features 1.7-1.8: plate like support means for transmitting vertical forces. The claim recites that one or more plate-like means should support the carrier. It can therefore also be just one. […]. The purpose of the support means is that it transmits vertical forces in a meaningful way. B. Group of features 1.9 concerning a retaining member in the form of an L-shaped strip made of metal. Test for equivalence: In the positive, finding of equivalent patent infringement always requires that the variant performs essentially the same function as the element recited in the claim, with essentially the same result. The same applies to the assumption that protection cannot extend to what is not new or inventive over the prior art. Legal certainty for third parties: Absent such indications, a third party can not genuinely believe that he/she can take advantage of the claimed invention, by simply using a non-metal strip to circumvent literal infringement. Necessity and balance of interest (Article 62(2) UPCA, R. 206(d) RoP. R. 211(3) RoP). The price difference is not sufficiently large to underpin Defendants’ claim that the markets are so separate that Applicants will not economically “feel” the continued sales by Defendants. Applicants acted without undue delay (R. 211(4) RoP): the delay was less than 2 months from the publication of the grant of the patent to start these proceedings, not counting some time for an out of Court settlement attempt by mail.

IPPT20250911, UPC CFI LD Dusseldorf, Ona Patents v Ekahau
Only 40% of court fees reimbursed as written pleadings are deemed to have been closed (R. 370.9(b)(ii) RoP). Although the written proceedings had not yet been formally closed, all regular pleadings foreseen in the Rules of Procedure had already been exchanged between the parties. Based on this, the judge rapporteur raised a lot of questions and requested further documentation on 1 August 2025. This order required an in-depth examination of the matter and is comparable to an R. 103 RoP order. 

IPPT20250910, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Ona Patents v Ekahau
Clarification of confidentiality order of 9 September to include an explicit statement about being confidential of the information provided by the Claimant in its application dated 20 August 2025 (Article 58 UPCA, R. 262A RoP)

IPPT20250909, UPC CFI, LD München, PAPST v Ecovacs
No extension of deadlines for second defendant to lodge Preliminary objection (R. 19.1 RoP) and Statement of defence (R. 23 RoP, R. 9.3 RoP). The defendant does not claim that it needs the extension in order to prepare an adequate defence. Although the aspect of procedural standardisation is to be recognised, it does not carry as much weight.

IPPT20250909, UPC CFI, LD Milan, Oerlikon v Himson Engineering
Withdrawal of infringement and revocation proceedings by party consent (R. 265 RoP)

IPPT20250909, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Ona Patents v Ekahau
Confidentiality regime (Article 58 UPCA, R. 262A RoP) for documents mostly related to third parties having confidentiality clauses and information submitted to the District Court of Munich I in the pending case for alleged patent infringement of EP 1 354 491 B1

IPPT20250908, UPC CFI, LD Paris, Adobe v KEEEX
Extension and alignment of time limits of R.19 and R.23 RoP to 4 September 2025 for all respondents (R. 9.3 RoP).

IPPT20250908, UPC CFI, President, Global Oy v FraunHofer
Language of the proceedings shall be changed to the language in which the patent was granted, namely English (Article 49(5) UPCA, R. 323 RoP). Due consideration must also be given to the need for such entities to coordinate and communicate internally in view of their defence. This strategic coordination is necessarily affected if the proceedings are not conducted in their usual working language. 

IPPT20250908, UPC CFI, CD Paris, Microsoft v Suinno
Confidential and privileged information concerning costs of legal representation pursuant to EU law (Article 58 UPCA, R. 152 RoP, R. 262A RoP, R. 287 RoP). Information concerning the number of hours spent on the case by the instructed representatives and the fees agreed upon between the parties must be considered confidential and information concerning the number of hours spent on the case by the instructed attorneys and the fees agreed upon between the parties falls within the scope of the attorney-client privilege provided by Rule 287 RoP.

IPPT20250908, UPC CFI, CD Munich, TCL v Corning
No extension of deadline by 2 weeks for filing the Reply to Defence to Revocation, including an Application to amend the patent because of tests being conducted (R. 9.3 RoP, R. 29(a) RoP)
 

IPPT20250905, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Centripetal v Keysight
Defendant’s request rejected to stay proceedings because of pending opposition (oral hearing scheduled for 27 November 2025) (R. 295(a) RoP). The case is ripe for a full-fledged hearing on 9/10 October 2025 including the validity of the patent. 

IPPT20250905, UPC CFI, President, Renault v Avago
Language of the proceedings changed to the language in which the patent was granted, namely English Article 49(5) UPCA and R. 323 RoP). In the absence of any objections raised by the Claimant in the main proceedings and given the position of the Defendants, the Court expressly refers to the reasoning developed in the aforementioned order: IPPT20250703, UPC CFI, President, Avago v Renault

IPPT20250905, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Ona Patents v Ekahau 
Withdrawal of action by party consent (R. 265 RoP)

IPPT20250905, UPC LD Milan, Edwards v Sintec
Settlement confirmed by the Court  (R. 365.1 RoP)

IPPT20250905, UPC CFI, LD Milan, Edwards v Sintec
Confirmation of a settlement (Art. 79 UPCA, R. 365.1 RoP). Certain parts shall be kept confidential at the request of the Parties. No reimbursement of Court fees in case of withdrawal of application for interim measures (R. 265 RoP). R. 370.9(b)(i) RoP is not applicable, either directly or analogously, to applications for interim measures. 

IPPT20250905, UPC LD Düsseldorf, Ona Patents v Ekahau
Withdrawal of action by party consent  (R. 265 RoP)

IPPT20250904, UPC CFI, LD Munich, UERAN v Xiaomi
Request for predetermined time limits for not yet represented defendants accepted (R. 9.3 RoP, R. 23 RoP).The defendants 1-3 and 6-7 not yet represented by counsel would agree to also instruct counsel to represent them in the present proceedings and to accept the requested time limit regime regardless of the date of actual service. 

IPPT20250904, UPC LD Munich, Belparts v IMI Hydronic
Parallel proceedings not heard together (R. 302.3 RoP). Regardless of the consent voiced by IMI […] The prerequisite that the two proceedings are pending 'before the same local or regional division or central division' is not met, since the counterclaim for infringement is pending with a different division to the infringement action
 

IPPT20250904, UPC LD Mannheim, Huawei v MediaTek
Security for costs regarding Claimant residing in China (Art. 69 (4) UPCA, R. 158.1 RoP). The Local Division Mannheim has so far not been able to successfully serve a judicial document in the People's Republic of China (where Claimant resides) in any of the many proceedings pending before it, in particular in any SEP proceedings. It is therefore to be feared that enforcement against assets located there will be all the more difficult. Only half the requested amount of the upper limit (i.e., € 100.000) is set as security for the second defendant, since it is still unclear to what extent the first defendant will defend itself with a counterclaim for annulment, while a division of the upper limit between the parties […] is to be made.

IPPT20250904, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Ecovacs Robotics v Roborock
Detailed ex parte order to preserve evidence and inspect premises (Article 60 UPCA, R. 194.2a RoP, R. 196 RoP, R. 197 RoP, R. 199 RoP). Even an imminent infringement in Germany is sufficient to establish the local jurisdiction of the German Local Divisions (Article 32(1)(c) UPCA, Article 33(1)(a) UPCA). In view of the circumstances of the case […] it is possible that the contested embodiments will be exhibited at IFA 2025 and that they will make use of the technical teaching of the patent in suit. The applicant, who is the owner of the patent application and has standing to sue, has provided a comprehensible explanation, based on an expert statement (Exhibit JD 10) and various product documents (Exhibits JD 7 to 8, Exhibits JD 11 to 14), as to why it assumes that all features of the patent application are realised in the contested embodiments. The order was to be issued ex parte pursuant to R. 192.3, 197 RoP. Otherwise, there would be a demonstrable risk that evidence would be destroyed or would no longer be available for other reasons (R. 197.1 Alt. 2 RoP).
 

IPPT20250904, UPC CFI, CD Milan, Gilead Sciences v AMMS
Inadmissible application for default judgement (R. 355.1(a) RoP). According to Rule 271.6, the statement of revocation is deemed to have been validly served to the defendant when the letter containing the statement of revocation and the unique access code was received by the patent representative. So, service was completed on 7 July 2025. The defendant, therefore, has until 8 September 2025 to file a statement of defense in the proceedings.

IPPT20250903, UPC LD Düsseldorf, Dai Nippon v Zapp
Extension of time limit to file Statement of defence but with one week only, to carry out analysis of film material related to prior disclosure and prior use claims (R.9.3(a) RoP,  R. 23 RoP, R. 24(f) RoP, R. 170.1 RoP)

IPPT20250903, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, HP v Zuhai and Rentmeister
Preliminary injunction and other provisional measures for direct patent infringement (Article 25 UPCA, R. 209 RoP). If a defendant, upon invitation, fails to lodge an objection to an application for provisional measures the case can be decided by means of a regular order (R. 206 RoP, R. 209.1(a) RoP, R. 355.1(a) RoP). In a situation like this, a decision by default (R. 355.1(a) RoP) is not something to be considered for several reasons. The fact that the Applicant has, in addition to its regular motions, also requested a decision by default does not prevent a regular order from being issued. Pursuant to Art. 76(1) UPCA, the Court shall decide in accordance with the requests submitted by the parties and shall not award more than is requested. The present order falls within this framework.

IPPT20250902, UPC CoA, CeraCon v Sunstar
Request denied for discretionary appeal review of order dismissing leave to amend counterclaim for revocation by introducing new prior art (R. 263.2 RoP, R. 220.3 RoP). Under these circumstances, and without further convincing explanations from CERACON as to the reasons why EP’480, with reasonable diligence, had been excluded from the search report prepared by its service provider for purposes of the Counterclaim for revocation, the CFI did not go beyond the boundaries of its discretion in deciding that CERACON had not satisfied the Court that the amendment could not have been made with reasonable diligence at an earlier stage under R. 263.2(a) RoP. 

IPPT20250902, UPC CFI, RD Nordic-Baltic, Edwards v Meril
Requests for rectification of decision on costs (Article 69(2) UPCA) dismissed. No obvious slip in decision of  21 July 2025  (R. 353 RoP). The decision – including items XII) and XIV) in its operative part – has the effect that the Claimant shall bear the remaining 25 % of its reasonable and proportionate costs in the counterclaim(s) for revocation and that the Defendants shall bear all its own costs. Neither the UPCA nor the Rules of Procedure prevents such an allocation of costs.

IPPT20250901, UPC LD Munich, KNAPP v Becton Dickinson
Extension of time limit for Defence to the Counterclaim for revocation and Reply to the Statement of defence (R. 29(a) RoP). Not as agreed between the parties (9 September 2025) but only until 5 September, to avoid a conflict with the preparation of the interim hearing.

IPPT20250902, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Jinko v Longi
Proceedings stayed on joint application due to ongoing settlement negotiations (R. 295(d) RoP). If the proceedings resume, the claimant has a fresh two-month deadline for the reply in the infringement procedure and the defence to the counterclaim for revocation (R. 23 RoP)

IPPT20250902, UPC CFI, LD Dusseldorf, Occlutech v Lepu Medical
Confidentiality club regime regarding information submitted by defendants in proceedings seeking interim measures (R. 206 RoP, R. 262A RoP)

IPPT20250901, UPC CoA, Centripetal v Keysight
No discretionary appeal review of panel confirmation of rejection of request for further written pleadings (regarding new allegedly infringing products) (R. 220.3 RoP, R. 36 RoP). CFI's exercise of discretion cannot be regarded as manifestly wrong. The CFI has not deprived CENTRIPETAL from its right to bring separate actions regarding newly-released infringing products, whether it is AI Stack or any other products from KEYSIGHT or any other third party, so that a risk of res judicata regarding facts and arguments not included in these proceedings has not been established.

IPPT20250901, UPC CD Paris, Seoul Viosys v Emporia
Preliminary objection rejected in revocation action, claiming lack of jurisdiction because claimant in this revocation action is a straw company and effectively the same party as in previous proceedings regarding the same patent before the LD Düsseldorf (R. 19 RoP, R. 20 RoP, Article 33(4) UPCA). Article 33(4) UPCA, second sentence, is not a provision on lis pendens, but rather a rule on derogatory jurisdiction that overrides the general competence of the central division for declaration of non-infringement actions and revocation actions. It grants jurisdiction to the local division previously seized to hear a case between the same parties concerning the same patent. EU law, abuse of right and “straw companies” (Article 24 UPCA). European Union law does not specifically provide for an institution corresponding to contractual simulation or explicitly regulate “straw companies”, but it does include a general principle of the prohibition of abuse of rights. Insufficient evidence that the claimant for invalidity is a straw company. The fact that the two companies resorted to substantially overlapping defence strategies, including having the same exhibits, does not mean that they are not conducting autonomous business activities or pursuing their own interests, even if, in this case, those interests converge in challenging the patent claimed by the applicant. The UPC framework does not exclude that a patent may be attacked by different subjects, even if linked by organizational ties or commercial relationships, and by the means of different claims, even if structured in the same grounds of invalidity.