2026 UPC February

IPPT20260227, UPC CoA, Sibio v Abbott
Request rejected for further exchange of written submissions, following reference in Statement of response to auxiliary requests already submitted in the first instance (R. 36 RoP, R. 222 RoP). The Auxiliary Requests must be considered to be part of the appeal proceedings, until and unless indicated otherwise (e.g. by a withdrawal). In a situation where the CFI did not need to decide on Auxiliary Requests, Appellant still has to address them if it wants to add anything to what was already submitted at first instance. Not allowing further pleadings is not contrary to the principles of due process, in particular the principles of fairness, equity and the right to be heard

IPPT20260227, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Irdeto v DJI

Defendant 1 to pay the fee for Counterclaim for revocation on submission of a separate counterclaim. (Rule 370.7 RoP , Rule 25 RoP). If a counterclaim for revocation is submitted on behalf of several defendants, only one court fee needs to be paid. If one of the defendants submits their own counterclaim at a later stage that defendant cannot rely on the fee already paid by other defendants.

IPPT20260226, UPC CoA, EOFlow v Insulet
Under R. 220.3 RoP, discretionary review is only possible when a timely application within 15 days for leave for appeal is made to and rejected by the CFI. Auxiliary request for CoA to grant leave for appeal inadmissible. Article 73 (2)(b)(ii) UPCA does not empower the Court of Appeal to itself grant leave to appeal . Article 73 (2)(b)(ii) UPCA empowers the Court to grant leave to appeal “within 15 days of the notification of the Court´s decision to that effect”

IPPT20260226, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Huawei v MediaTek

Suspension of inspection of files by a third party granted in light of applicant’s request for a panel review. (Rule 262.1(b) RoP, Rule 335 RoP , Rule 333 RoP). A judge-rapporteur whose procedural order or decision is subject to review by the panel may be entitled to and, if applicable, also obliged to suspend their order or decision pursuant to R. 335 RoP. Suspension ensures that the forthcoming order or decision of the panel review is not interfered with by compliance with the order or decision, which could render the review ineffective.

IPPT20260225, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, GSK v. Pfizer

One week extension for the submission of the Rejoinder / Reply / Defence , for the application for amendment of the patent. (Rule 9.3 RoP, Rule 29 RoP, Rule 30 RoP). Extension will not affect the dates already set for the interim conference and oral hearing.

IPPT20260225, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, beMatrix v Yaham Technology

Ex-parte preliminary injunction for seizure of infringing goods at a trade show granted against the defendant .(Article 62(1) UPCA, Article 25(a) UPCA, Rule 211.1 (b), Rule 209.2 RoP, Rule 212 RoP) . Attacked embodiment infringes claim 1 of the patent.. It is not more likely than not that the patent in suit is not valid.

IPPT20260224, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, TRUMPF v IPG

Patent valid and infringed (Article 25 UPCA , Article 65 UPCA). Claim interpretation (Article 69 EPC). Claim 6 - input fiber bundle: the term “an” must be understood as a numeral. Contrary to the defendant’s view, feature 6.1.1.1 provides for only one inner input fiber, which serves as a clear reference point for (at least) one set of input fibers arranged radially outward. The wording “an inner fiber” already points in this direction, […] especially since the relevant original language does not state “[only] one inner fiber.” Infringement - literal use of the teaching of claim 6 of the patent. (Article 25 UPCA) Features 6.1.1, 6.1.1.1, 6.1.2, 6.2, and 6.3.1 are also realized.

IPPT20260224, UPC CFI, CD Munich, UPM-Kymmene v International N&H

Patent revoked: lack of inventive step, added matter. (Article 56 EPC, Article 138(1)(c) EPC). Claim Construction (Article 69 EPC). Claim 1, being a product claim, is not limited to the use of the claimed sugar composition as an intermediate product in any particular process. Claim 1 does not correspond to an intermediate product formed as part of a new and advantageous process for producing a xylose-enriched sugar mixture which can be subjected to crystallisation. Skilled person interprets the “amount of marker molecule” in claim 1 as being measured relative to the sugar composition rather than relative to the total sugar concentration in the composition. Description does not provide a “definition” of the basis for calculating the amount of marker molecule in a sugar composition. The skilled person would expect a clear definition of how to calculate the amount of marker molecule. In the absence of a definition or technical teaching, it is in the interest of legal certainty that third parties can rely on the ordinary wording of the claim read by the skilled person in its technical context. The patentee is responsible for drafting claims that adequately define the subject matter for which protection is sought. Particularly for composition claims containing numerical ranges of ingredients. For such claims, the skilled person may reasonably expect that the patentee is precise and diligent in specifying the components of a claimed composition. Added matter (Article 138(1) (c) EPC, Article 123(2) EPC) Technically relevant information - not derivable from the application as filed. Lack of inventive step (Article 56 EPC). Absent an inextricable link between a claimed composition and an inventive process for the production of a known end-product, no inventive step can be acknowledged for an otherwise non-inventive composition relied upon as an intermediate product.

IPPT20260224, UPC CFI, LD Munich, UERAN v Xiaomi

Confidentiality order amended to include omitted paragraphs. (Rule 262 RoP). No reason to exclude claimant's patent attorneys from confidentiality club. (Article 48 UPCA, Article 58 UPCA, Rule. 262A RoP). It follows from Art. 48 UPCA that a party has the fundamental right to freely choose whether it wishes to be represented by a lawyer or a European Patent Attorney or by a team of both, optionally assisted by patent attorneys.Neither Art. 48 UPCA nor Art. 58 UPCA implies that the right to freely choose a representative can be restricted with regard to whether the representative has a legal or a technical background. As with technically qualified judges, the competence of patent attorneys is not limited to purely technical matters.

IPPT20260224, UPC CFI, CD Munich, TCL Europe v Corning
Revocation action dismissed (Article 65 UPCA). Inventive step (Article 56 EPC). A realistic starting point, in the opinion of the Court, is typically a prior art disclosure as a whole. Absent a specific reason or pointer in the disclosure itself (or based on common general knowledge) to do so, the selection of a particular example composition as a “starting point”, merely because it happens to come “closest” to the claimed subject matter in terms of structural components bears the risk that such selection itself already involves hindsight. Where the features of a patent claim, in an interdependent way, even if they are not synergetic in the sense of having a special combination effect, provide a solution to the objective problem, ignoring these interdependencies and dividing the objective problem up into separate problems amounts to hindsight reasoning which is to be avoided in the assessment of inventive step.

IPPT20260224, UPC CoA, Gowling v Sumi Agro & Syngenta
Request for public access to the register partially granted (R. 262.1(b) RoP). Reasoned requests to the Registry for written pleadings and evidence, lodged at the Court of First Instance, shall be made to the relevant Division. Similarly, reasoned requests for written pleadings and evidence, lodged at the Court of Appeal, shall be made to the Court of Appeal. The case-file of the case in first instance is not generally relodged at the CoA, meaning that the CoA is not able to grant access to it. A request for written pleadings and evidence must be specified to the greatest extent possible and cannot be made in terms which would require the Court to search and select documents based on relevance criteria set up by the requesting party.

IPPT20260224, UPC CoA, Suinno v Microsoft
Application for rehearing rejected (Article 81(1) UPCA; R. 245 RoP). Only fundamental procedural defects can be the basis for a rehearing. What Suinno has brought forward in its Applications is not sufficient to conclude that the Court of Appeal made an error, let alone one that must be considered a flaw of such a serious nature that it would constitute a fundamental error without which the same decision or order would not have been taken. According to R. 248.1 RoP, an Application for rehearing based on the ground of a fundamental procedural defect is only admissible where an objection in respect of the procedural defect was raised during the proceedings before the Court of First Instance or the Court of Appeal and dismissed by the Court, except where such objection could not have been raised during the proceedings before the Court of First Instance or the Court of Appeal. Non-compliance with order to pay security must lead to default judgment (R. 158.5 RoP). It is only under exceptional circumstances that the Court may derogate from this general rule. 

IPPT20260224, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, GSK v. Moderna

Amendment of claim allowed (Rule 263.2 RoP)Claimant allowed to include allegedly infringing product “mNEXSPIKE”.

IPPT20260219, UPC CFI, LD Vienna, Messerle v Sabert

Patent valid and not infringed. (Article 65 UPCA, Article 25 UPCA) Claim interpretation on the basis of the language of the patent (German) (Article 69 EPC, Article 70 (1) EPC). Although the language of the proceedings is English, interpretation and considerations are based on the German text of the patent and the English translations of the claims are read similarly. The German term “Knick” as used in the German language version of claim 1 is understood by the person skilled in the art as a portion of the claimed packaging that is created by folding of card- or paperboard along a predefined folding line, causing in the folded state a visible sharp crease at the interface of two walls or wall-shaped portions of the packaging. Claimant’s argument that a bending radius cannot be used as clear distinction between the English terms “bend” and “fold” […] does not lead to a different result. New pieces of prior art (enclosures J, M, N, O, P) introduced by the defendant disregarded as late filed (Rule 9 RoP, Rule 25 RoP). Rule 25.1 requires the counterclaim for revocation to contain an indication of the facts relied on, and the evidence relied on, where available and an indication of any further evidence which will be offered in support. Submitting evidence for prior state of the art or for prior use at a later time requires a reasonable justification regarding to the timeliness. A commercial brochure (Exhibit D4) as such, is a stand-alone piece of prior art distinct from a physical product. (Rule 263 RoP) The physical product filed as Exhibit J may not be used to establish the disclosure of the brochure D4; it must also be avoided to establish the disclosure of D4 in “hindsight” with the knowledge of the physical product filed as Exhibit J. Already from the outset, obtaining the physical product that is being advertised in a commercial brochure is not a valid approach to establishing the disclosure of the stand-alone publication. Obtaining and filing the Enclosures J, M, N, O, P hence cannot be seen as a reaction to Claimant’s arguments and an attempt to counter Claimant’s arguments in the reply to the counterclaim. 

IPPT20260219, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Leap Tools v Wizart

Request for security for costs dismissed (Article 69(4) UPCA, Rule 158 RoP). Simple reference to Claimant’s registered office in Canada does not demonstrate that a cost order would be unduly burdensome. Claimant’s annual revenue estimated to be less than EUR 20 million in 2025 , is not so low that one could assume, without further explanation, that a cost order may not be enforceable.

IPPT20260219, UPC CFI, LD Paris, Gowling v Merz

Public access to registry granted to law firm (Art. 45 UPCA, Rule 262.1(b)) .After anonymisation of personal data. Limited to documents regarding unreasonable delay. (Rule 211.4 RoP)

IPPT20260218, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Dai Nippon v Zapp

Confidentiality club regarding sensitive commercial information and technical know-how of the defendant. (Article 58 UPCA, Rule 262A (2) RoP)

IPPT20260218, UPC CoA, Samsung Bioepis v Alexion
Withdrawal of appeal by party consent (Rule. 265.1 RoP)

IPPT20260218, UPC CoA, Syntorr v Arthrex
Order for security for costs set aside in light of litigation insurance (Article 69(4) UPCA, Rule 158.1 RoP) . Careful consideration of the terms of a litigation insurance policy is of particular relevance to demonstrate the financial position of party. The insurance obtained by the appellant provided adequate security - no obligation to provide further security in the form of a deposit or a bank guarantee. Appelant sufficiently substantiated the validity and the terms of the insurance policy in first instance proceedings. 

IPPT20260218, UPC CoA, Guardant Health v Sophia Genetics
Request for suspensive effect for interim cost award rejected: no infringement of fundamental procedural rights and manifest errors (R. 211.1(d) RoP, R. 223 RoP). In general, the Court may assume that the successful party will be entitled to 50% of the applicable ceiling and may order reimbursement of the amount by means of an interim award, unless there are clear indications that the successful party in fact incurred fewer representation costs, or that 50% of the applicable ceiling is more than what would be reasonable or proportionate in the particular circumstances of the case. At the same time, as a general rule, the Court cannot assume that the successful party is entitled to more than 50% of the applicable ceiling before the conclusion of the cost proceedings according to Chapter 5 of Part 1 RoP. An exception may apply if parties have submitted and discussed cost specifications during the proceedings or have agreed on the costs to be reimbursed. Request to set a deadline for paying the interim costs dismissed. There is no legal basis for a request to supplement the first-instance decision in the proceedings for an order suspending the effect of the appeal, by setting a deadline for Guardant to pay the interim award of costs.

IPPT20260218, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Corning v Hisense

Withdrawal by party consent. (Rule 265 RoP). Partial withdrawal of infringement action allowed. Rule 265.1 RoP also applies if the action is not withdrawn in its entirety, but only in relation to some of several defendants.

IPPT20260218, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, GlaxoSmithKline v Moderna
Leave to amend claim granted. (Rule 263 RoP) Application to admit allegedly late-filed submissions and arguments dismissed.  (Rule 9 RoP). There is no need for a limitation of an injunction to specific infringing products based on what is claimed. (Rule 263 RoP).In the present case, GSK, requested general injunctive relief to prohibit infringement of claim 1 and several other claims, where the specific products are mentioned as examples, but the requested relief is not limited to: “A liposome (…) such as the Infringing Products (the Spikevax Infringing Products and mRESVIA Infringing Products individually and jointly), and/or further versions or variants thereof,”[emphasis added]. Relief against other products, in particular new versions or variants that already fall within the scope of protection of the claims, already fall within the request from the start of the proceedings. Thus, there is no need to amend the claim to include the new allegedly infringing product “mNEXSPIKE”.The front-loaded character of the proceedings does not require a claimant to anticipate every defence/argument of defendants in its SoC. (Rule 9 (1) RoP).Arguments and further evidence submitted by GSK in its Reply, are permitted as they mostly further expand on arguments GSK already made in the SoC. 

IPPT20260217, UPC CoA, Rematec v Europe Forestry
Revocation decision set aside (Article 65 UPCA), infringement found in appeal (Article 25 UPCA). Final decision in appeal (Article 75 UPCA, R. 242.2(b) RoP). The Court of Appeal, must, in order to issue a final decision, as a rule decide not only on the counterclaim for revocation but also render a final decision on the infringement action. That the Court of First Instance failed to decide an issue which it is necessary for the Court of Appeal to decide on appeal does not normally constitute an exceptional circumstance justifying a referral back. Claim interpretation (Article 69 EPC). Insufficient that implementation of the orientation required by feature 1d could theoretically take place, but in fact does not. Actual implementation is decisive (as confirmed by description and drawings). The assumption made by the Court of First instance runs counter to the fact that, under that assumption, the essentially radial orientation of the feed-in and discharge required by feature 1d would be rendered ineffective, thereby depriving essential functional aspects of the feature of their meaning. The term “essentially” indicates that the orientation of the feed-in and discharge to be enabled does not depend on a strictly geometrical understanding; sufficient to enable a configuration in which the grist is fed in and discharged in a direction that is more radial than tangential. Novelty (Article 54 EPC). D3 does not disclose feature 1d: In the mills shown in the aforementioned Figures 3 and 8, the feed-in and/or discharge takes place rather in a tangential direction than in a radial direction, and thus not in an essentially radial direction. Inventive step (Article 56 EPC) There is no suggestion to modify in such a way that, instead of providing an essentially tangential feed-in and discharge, they would enable an essentially radial feed-in and discharge. Lack of legal interest regarding enabling disclosure of dependent claims 6 and 8 (Article 138(1)(b) EPC) since the counterclaim for revocation is already unsuccessful with respect to the independent patent claim 1, to which patent claims 6 and 8 directly and indirectly refer back and which therefore has a scope of protection that also encompasses patent claims 6 and 8. Direct infringement of product claim 1 (Article 25 UPCA). “Offering” must be interpreted autonomously and understood in an economic sense. An “offering” does not have to constitute a legally binding contractual offer. It is sufficient that an item is presented in such a way that a third party could make an offer to acquire it, for example by concluding a contract of sale, lease, or hire - advertising alone can suffice. Infringement exists where the product is suitable for infringing use, even if alternative (non-infringing) configurations exist. Indirect infringement of method claim 15 (Article 26 UPCA). Apparent that the contested mill is suitable for carrying out the method of claim 15. Also applies when it is used in accordance with the information in the Defendant’s brochures and the Defendant, as a specialized company that published the brochure, was also aware of that. Permanent injunction against infringer (Article 63(1) UPCA). The Court must grant a permanent injunction unless there are special reasons for not doing so, which may arise in particular from the general obligations under Article 3 of the Enforcement Directive. Corrective measures and direct infringement – proportionality (Article 25 UPCA, Article 64 UPCA). Following the finding of direct infringement of patent claim 1 by the contested embodiment, corrective measures are ordered, namely the recall and permanent removal of the contested embodiment from the channels of commerce as well as the destruction of the contested embodiment. With regard to the principle of proportionality laid down in Article 64(4) UPCA, it must be clarified that, in order to comply with the order to destroy the contested embodiments in the Defendant’s possession, it is sufficient if the longitudinal bars at the discharge opening that are spaced at least 70 mm apart are replaced with bars spaced below that value. Corrective measures and indirect infringement remains undecided (Article 26 UPCA, Article 64 UPCA). No decision is required, as an order concerning the contested embodiment already results from the direct infringement of patent claim 1. It can therefore remain undecided whether corrective measures pursuant to Article 64 UPCA can be ordered at all in the event of (only) an indirect patent infringement being found and, if so, under what circumstances the ordering of corrective measures in the event of an indirect patent infringement meets the requirement of proportionality pursuant to Article 64(4) UPCA. Publication of the decision (Article 80 UPCA). Such an order also requires the claimant to demonstrate a legitimate interest in the requested publication of the decision at the defendant's expense. In this regard, all circumstances of the individual case must be considered, such as the scope and severity of the infringement, the public presentation of the conflict, the public's interest in information, and whether the publication of the decision can contribute to eliminating misconceptions in the market caused by the infringement or to deterring future infringements.

IPPT20260217, UPC CFI, President, Xiaomi v Malikie

Language of proceedings changed from German to English for reasons of fairness. (Article 49 (5) UPCA , Rule 323 RoP). The need for strategic coordination and technical support in a common working language is a decisive factor in the balancing of all interests. Taking into account that the language primarily chosen is not only a financial burden, but also a disadvantage in view of strict time limits that must be met in UPC proceedings.

IPPT20260217, UPC CFI, LD Paris, Valeo v Robert Bosch
Preliminary objection dismissed (R. 19 RoP). The “same alleged infringement” (Article 33.1(b) UPCA) refers to the infringement of the same patent. Commercial link between defednats undisputed.

IPPT20260217, UPC CoA, bioMérieux v Labrador
Request to stay proceedings pending EPO opposition rejected. As a general principle, the Court will not stay proceedings, otherwise, the Court cannot ensure that the final oral hearing will take place within a reasonable time. (R. 295 RoP). An exception to the principle that the Court will not stay revocation proceedings pending opposition proceedings applies when a rapid decision may be expected from the EPO. (Art. 33(10) UPCA, R. 295(a) RoP). The Court has a discretionary power to stay the proceedings when a rapid decision may be expected from the EPO. Whether or not a stay is granted depends on the balance of interests of the parties and the specific circumstances of the case. The fact that the expected EPO decision is not a final decision and is likely to be appealed is one of several factors that may be taken into account 

IPPT20260217, UPC CoA, Huawei v TP-Link
IPPT20260217, UPC CoA, Huawei v Netgear
Requests for confidentiality made under R. 262.2 RoP must be submitted together with a redacted version and justification together with the document itself. If, on the other hand, a party has not requested under R. 262.2 RoP that certain information in pleadings or evidence be treated as confidential, the member of the public shall, upon application, be granted access under R. 262.1(b) RoP, subject to the protection of personal data, provided that the balancing of interests has been in their favour. The party requesting confidentiality can still submit a request before being heard by the judge rapporteur

IPPT20260216, UPC CFI, ETRI v Gorenie
Withdrawal by party consent (R. 265 RoP)

IPPT20260213, UPC CFI, LD Milan, Pirelli v SYR
Order setting out decisions taken at interim conference (Rule. 105.5 RoP). Withdrawal of preliminary objection regarding failure to serve application for interim relief, admissibility of photographs and seized product samples, value of the action set at € 500.000

 IPPT20260212, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Align v Angelalign 
Preliminary injunction granted . (Article 62(1) UPCA ,  Rule 209 RoP, Rule 211 RoP) . Infringement is assumed. Late filed non infringement arguments submitted in the rejoinder. (Article 25 (a)UPCA, Rule 52 RoP). Claim interpretation (Article 69 EPC) Defendants disagreement with claim interpretation applied by the EPO in the examination concerning lack of validity of the patent does not mean that the burden of proof should shift to the patent proprietor (Article 65 UPCA, Article 54 UPCA). It is not more likely than not that the patent in suit is not valid(Article 65 UPCA). The mere fact that the Applicant has relied on combinations of claim 1 with sub-claims, does not lead to the invalidity of claim 1 being more likely than not. The liability of a managing director applies even more so to a financial holding company – Belkin v Philips . (Article 25 UPCA). When no action going beyond the typical role of shareholder/financial holding is alleged, the application against this defendant has to be rejected.

IPPT20260212, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Honeywell v Sovex
Rejection of preliminary objections confirmed by panel (R. 19 RoP, R. 333 RoP). The Court establishes (international) jurisdiction and competence based on the facts brought forward (Article 71b(2) Brussels, Article 28 Brussels). According to Art. 28 Brussels I recast regulation, the court has to decide on its jurisdiction under Regulation ex officio. Competence regarding managing directors (Article 32(1)(a) UPCA, Article 25 UPCA, Article 63 UPCA). In the Statement of Claim, Honeywell has asserted that all Defendants commit infringing acts themselves. Such an allegation can be done either by stating infringing acts of defendants jointly and individually. It has furthermore stated that given the specific circumstances, Solvest V, Solvest VI, Solvest VII, Solvink and De Kleine Beuk can be held responsible for alleged infringing acts by other entities. Whether these Defendants in fact carried out acts stated in Art. 25 UPCA and/or whether (lack of) other actions lead to the conclusion 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. R. 20(1) RoP does not require that a defendant has to be given another opportunity to be heard.  Moreover, the Defendants were able to present their arguments in their application for review. Internal competence of divisions is not governed by Brussels I but a UPC internal matter (Article 33 UPCA). No hierarchy between competence based on the place where the actual or threatened infringement has occurred or may occur in Art. 33(1)(a) UPCA, and competence based on the residence or principal place of business of the defendant in Art. 33(1)(b) UPCA. There is no need to look for connecting factors in the territory of the local division seized in relation to each defendant to establish competence. To determine competence under Art. 33(1)(a) UPCA, the existence of infringing activities, for example an offer or the possibility to obtain the allegedly infringing devices through a website accessible in the Contracting Member State hosting the local division, needs to be established. Appeal of rejection of preliminary objection (R. 333 RoP, R. 220.2 RoP). If a Preliminary objection is rejected, as an exception to the general principle, leave to appeal may be given by the judge-rapporteur and the order may be appealed against without prior panel review under R.333.1 RoP being required. 

IPPT20260211, UPC CFI, LD Hamburg, Fives v REEL
Claims for damages for loss of profits dismissed because it cannot be concluded that the claimant is entitled to the amount claimed or that an order for payment of damages can be made (Article 68 UPCA, Article  13 Enforcement Directive). National law applies to a claim for damages for loss of profit where the facts of the case were established before the Unified Patent Court came into force on 1 June 2023. ven when claiming loss of profit due to a price reduction, it must be possible to establish that, in the ordinary course of events or in the light of the particular circumstances, the profit would likely have been made. In this regard, the offer must be assessed for its reasonableness, taking all circumstances into account. The possibility of an alternative offer from the infringer must be taken into account in the assessment if it is established that the client would in any event have requested a further offer. Since both national (German) law on damages and the UPCA are based on Directive 2004/48/EC (the Enforcement Directive), there should be no differing outcomes in the present case when assessing a claim for damages for loss of profit.

IPPT20260211, UPC CFI, LD Dusseldorf, Avago v Telefónica
Withdrawal by party consent (R. 265.2 RoP). Although Rule 265.2(c) of the Rules of Procedure requires a decision on costs, such a decision was unnecessary in this case in view of the parties’ unanimous statement that no decision on costs was required.

IPPT20260211, UPC CoA, Valeo v Bosch
Appeal against order judge-rapporteur granting preliminary objection but not ending the proceedings admissible under R. 220.1 RoP. (Article 73 UPCA) An order granting a preliminary objection that does not end the proceedings is not a decision granting the preliminary objection in the sense of Rule 21.1 RoP. An order of the judge-rapporteur granting the preliminary objection but not terminating the proceedings in respect of one of the parties is neither a "decision" granting the preliminary objection within the meaning of the first sentence of Rule 21.1 RoP, nor is it an order that "rejects" the preliminary objection within the meaning of the second sentence of Rule 21.1 RoP. In the case of such an order, which does not fall within any of the grounds for appeal referred to in Article 73(1) and 73(2)(a) UPCA or Rule 220.1 of the RoP, the provisions of the second sentence of art. 21.1 of the RoP must apply by analogy. Request for suspensive effect denied (R. 295(m) RoP): translation time following the drafting (in vain) of a submission is not an extraordinary circumstance that justifies suspension of the first instance proceedings. 

IPPT20260211, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Canon v Katun
Patent valid and infringed. (Article 25 UPCA).VALIDITY. Counterclaim for revocation unfounded : No added matter (Article 138 EPC). The Court cannot identify any relevant differences between the new translations of claim 1 (from Japanese) and the application as filed. Even if considering only the pure wording, the translation does not necessarily lead to a different meaning. Inventive step present (Article 56 EPC).The stronger a pointer towards the claimed solution, the lower is the threshold for a reasonable expectation of success. Whether there is a reasonable expectation of success depends on the circumstances of the case. The more unexplored a technical field of research, the more difficult it was to make predictions about its successful conclusion and the lower the expectation of success. The Defendants did not show a pointer to the solution, which would have directed the skilled person from D3 (prior art) to a next step in the direction of the invention claimed in the patent in suit. No arguments presented as to how such a pointer could be derived from the prior art D3. INFRINGEMENT. The challenged embodiments directly infringe the patent by making literal use of the teaching of claim 1. (Article 25 UPCA, Article 69 EPC, Protocol on the interpretation of Article 69 )The infringement is challenged only with regard to feature 1.1 and based on their interpretation of claim 1 as a system claim requiring a developer receiving apparatus. From the Court’s interpretation of claim 1, the developer receiving apparatus itself, and the printer or parts of it, are not subject of claim 1. Claim 1 states that the developer supply container is ‘mountable’ to a developer receiving apparatus. The skilled person will understand this to mean that the parts of the developer receiving apparatus named in feature 1.1 — the developer receiving portion, the receiving opening and the supported portion — are not claimed to be present. The decision whether to permit publication should depend on a two step-test: (1) whether the claimant has a legitimate interest in publishing the decision and (2) whether the defendant’s interests outweigh this interest (Art. 80 UPCA).  The Claimant has demonstrated a legitimate interest . In addition to general considerations, it has pointed out that the Defendants have already chosen this communication channel by announcing the underlying proceedings on their US website.The Claimant has demonstrated that it is necessary to correct the false impression created in the public domain regarding their authorisation to manufacture and sell the challenged products. Furthermore, the Claimant has convincingly pointed out that the Defendants supply approximately 8,000 customers worldwide, all of whom must be notified. This would not be feasible through private communication alone. In the Court’s view, there should be a restriction on the number of public media outlets in which the Claimant is allowed to publish the decision and that the period of publication must be limited. No order for security granted (Art. 82(2) UPCA, R. 158 RoP) the Defendants have not provided any justification for making enforcement in this case dependent on the provision of security.

IPPT20260211, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Maxeon Solar v Aiko Energy
Withdrawal of infringement action by party consent. (Rule 265.1 RoP) Conditions for reimbursement of court fees not met. (Rule 370.9 RoP). When the Court was informed of the settlement, the oral proceedings had already been completed. (Rule 370.9(c) RoP). The termination of the proceedings did not result in significant time savings for the Court. 

IPPT20260210, UPC CFI, LD Milan, AWM v Progress Maschinen
Appeal against a CFI upholding a counterclaim for revocation has automatic suspensive effect. Stay of proceedings ordered. (Article 74(2) UPCA, Rule. 150 RoP, Rule 295 RoP). The automatic suspensive effect applies to the decision in its entirety, including the parts relating to legal costs. (Article 69 UPCA) Interpretation that “the automatic suspensive effect provided by law would be limited solely to the provisions of the decision relating strictly to the validity of the patent” introduces an arbitrary limitation that would exclude any suspensive effect relating to other points of the decision, including those relating to legal costs not contemplated by the provision’s wording. The court deviates from the decision in  CD Paris, dated 29.4.2025 (Roche Diabetes v Tandem Diabetes), the aforementioned decision did not consider the applicability of Article 74(2) UPCA at all. And refers to order of LD Brussels dated 2.5.2025 ( OrthoApnea ) where the Court determined that it was permissible to stay the proceedings for cost determination, even in cases where the automatic and mandatory suspensive effect stipulated in Article 74(2) UPCA does not apply.
 

IPPT20260209, UPC CoA, PAPST Licensing v EPO
Request to grant unitary effect denied (R. 97 RoP). Article 3(1) of Regulation 1257/2012 cannot be interpreted to allow registration of unitary effect for a granted European patent which does not include the designation of one of the participating Member States [Malta]. No justification can be found to allow for Art. 3(1) of Regulation 1257/2012 to be applied contra legem. Request to refer questions to the CJEU denied (acte  clair) (Article 20 UPCA). The outcome in the present proceedings is based on a literal reading of Article 3(1) of Regulation 1257/2012

IPPT20260205, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, Adeia Guides v Disney
Withdrawal of infringement action and counterclaim for revocation on parties reaching a settlement.  (Article 25 UPCA, Rule. 265.1 RoP, Rule 25 RoP) 

IPPT20260204, UPC CFI, LD Paris, Keeex v Adobe
No default judgment justified as a sanction for lack of diligence in providing a bank guarantee of € 200.000 within the ordered time limit of 16 January 2026 (R. 158.5 RoP, R. 355 RoP). It should be noted that R. 158.5 RoP provides that the reporting judge ‘may’ issue a default judgment, which leaves the judge with discretion in accordance with the principles of procedural efficiency as well as the principles of fairness and proportionality. KEEEX provided, within the time limit set by the order (i.e. 16 January 2026) proof that the sum of €200,000 was frozen in its account for this purpose and, in view of the reporting judge’s response dated 16 January 2026 at the end of the day, provided the documents corresponding to the required bank guarantee as early as the following 26 January.
 

IPPT20260204, UPC CoA, Centripetal Limited v Palo Alto Networks
Request to maintain the Saisie Order to the extent outlined in Exhibit A1 is inadmissible  (R. 192 RoP, R. 222.2 RoP). The form in which Centripetal seeks to have the Saisie Order “maintained” […] broadens the scope of the order. The Saisie Order concerned the preservation of evidence at an office located at Rosenheimer Straße 143c in Munich. In the amended form, however, the scope of the order includes documents that are not available at the location of this office. Centripetal seeks the production of documents irrespective of their location. In addition, the detailed descriptions that Palo Alto would be required to provide under requests 1 a) aa) and bb) of the amended request cover a broader – or at least a less clearly defined – category of documents than the technical documentation, internal development records and manuals referred to in the original application. Appellant failed to provide any justification for not submitting the amended request during the first instance proceedings. 

IPPT20260204, UPC CFI, LD Paris, Bostik v Henkel
Defendants ordered to produce evidence in the form of technical data sheets of older products (Article 59 UPCA, Rule 190 RoP).It is reasonable and proportionate to grant the request to produce documents.The information is useful and necessary for Bostik to respond to the defendants' argument regarding the obsolescence of information from 2016.
 

IPPT20260204, UPC CoA, EOFlow v Insulet
Appeal against order imposing penalties inadmissible. (Article 69 UPCA,  Art. 82(4) UPCA, Rule 354.4 RoP). Appealable decisions (Rule 220 RoP) Orders imposing penalty payments do not fall under Article 73(2)(a) UPCA or Rule 220.1 RoP, an appeal against such orders is only admissible if leave to appeal is granted according to Rule. 220.4 RoP. This clarification is necessary because, unlike the typical procedural orders, this order is not necessarily issued in the course of ongoing proceedings prior to a final decision. It may also be, and typically is, issued after the main proceedings have been concluded. Leave to appeal granted by first instance regarding confidentiality request (Rule 221 RoP) cannot be presumed to extend to the order imposing the penalty. The Legal remedy against a cost order for penalty payments (Article 69 UPCA) is an appeal under R. 220.2 RoP and not an application for leave to appeal against cost decisions according to R. 221 RoP. (Rule 220.2 RoP, Rule 221 RoP). Orders on costs, which concern both, the question of who bears the costs and the amount - are subject to the same legal remedy as the decision on the merits. 
 

IPPT20260203, UPC CoA, Oerlikon v Bhagat
Security for costs in appeal released following settlement (Article 69(4) UPCA, Article 79 UPCA, R. 158 RoP). R.352.2 RoP, which applies to security for enforcement, applied by way of analogy. This provision applies to security for enforcement but should be applied by way of analogy in the present case. There is a reason to do so given the conclusion of the proceedings and the settlement between the parties.

IPPT20260202, UPC CFI, LD Dusseldorf, 10xGenomics v Curio Bioscience
Cost decision on the reimbursability of costs in PI proceedings (Article. 69 UPCA, Rule. 150, 151, 152 RoP). Costs incurred in PI proceedings are reimbursable separately. The decision on the reimbursability of costs is to be taken in a uniform cost procedure following the proceedings on the merits. The ceilings for PI proceedings and the proceedings on the merits must be determined separately – follow up to Decision of Ortovox v Mammut). If the costs in PI proceedings are reimbursable separately within a ceiling that applies specifically to those proceedings, the costs of both the PI proceedings and the main proceedings are capped by the applicable ceiling. It is inadmissible to mix the costs of the PI proceedings and the proceedings on the merits or to shift them from one proceeding to the other, even if the results of the PI proceedings may be used in subsequent proceedings on the merits. It is the applicant’s responsibility to ensure that it remains within the ceiling during the PI proceedings. Compensation for representation costs (Rule. 152.2 RoP). For partial success, the applicable ceiling shall correspond to the proportion of success of the party seeking cost recovery. Accordingly, First, the reimbursable representation costs must be determined based on the quota set by the Court in accordance with Art. 69 UPCA in conjunction with R. 118.5 RoP. Second, the ceiling, which is reduced in accordance with the quota set by the Court, must be applied. 
 

IPPT20260202, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Hewlett-Packard v Andreas Rentmeister
Service of the Statement of claim by an alternative method  (R. 275.2 RoP). The publication of an order on the Court’s website, of which the Defendant has been notified via e-mail, constitutes good service on Defendant.