2026 UPC May

IPPT20260508, UPC CoA, Adobe v Keeex
Request for discretionary review dismissed (R. 220.3 RoP). The fundamental legal question underlying the request has been clarified by the Court of Appeal in its order of 13 March 2026 [between the same parties] . The Court of Appeal ruled that, where the UPC has jurisdiction on the basis of Article 7(2) of Regulation 1215/2012 as the court of the place where the damages occurred or threaten to occur, said article does not provide jurisdiction for infringement in non-member states of the UPC. The order of the Court of Appeal, which was handed down in proceedings between the parties and concerning the patent at issue, conclusively settles the legal issue or question. Uniform application of R. 334(h) RoP: As far as the Appellants refer to the necessity for a uniform application of R. 334(h) RoP, this argument also fails. Their request for a review of discretion does not suggest that various divisions of the Court of First Instance take fundamentally different approaches when exercising their respective discretion.

IPPT20260513, UPC CoA, Huawei v Quinn Emanuel
Application for discretionary review granted (R. 220.3 RoP; R. 333 RoP, R. 262 RoP) because the question of whether the rapporteur’s decision regarding access under R. 262 RoP is subject to review by the panel pursuant to R 333 RoP, and whether and how an appeal may be lodged against that decision, raises fundamental legal issues which must be clarified by the Court of Appeal. No determination on admissibility of appeal (R. 220.2 RoP) Neither this order nor the reference in this order to R. 220.2 RoP can be regarded as an acknowledgement by the Court of Appeal that an appeal under R. 220.2 RoP is admissible in the present case. This issue is the subject of the appeal proceedings concerning the contested decision.

IPPT20260506, UPC CoA, Lepu v Occlutech
Withdrawal of appeal by party consent (R. 265 RoP). Appellant ordered to bear the respondent’s costs. As a general rule, in the event of a withdrawal of an appeal, the appellant shall be considered to be the unsuccessful party and shall bear the costs incurred in relation to the appeal proceedings