UPC Court of Appeal - 2025
Print this pageIPPT20251229, UPC COA, Amazon v InterDigital
Suspensive effect of appeal from anti-suit order dismissed. (Rule 223 RoP). Amazon has not established that irreversible harm is imminent and that not ordering suspensive effect would render the appeal-at-hand devoid of purpose. Enforcement (Rule. 354.4 RoP). The risk that the court may initiate penalty proceedings of its own motion under R. 354.4 RoP , at any time, does not justify an order of suspensive effect.
IPPT20251229, UPC COA, VMR Products v NJOY
Appeal rejected: patent revocation upheld. Late filed new grounds for invalidity in first instance Defence to application to amend . (Rule 32 RoP, Rule. 263 RoP) . Defence to the Application to amend the patent does not provide an opportunity to introduce new grounds of invalidity in relation to the patent, such as new prior art considered - either novelty destroying or, convincing starting points for the assessment of lack of inventive step, unless leave to amend the case is granted . Specific new arguments may be admitted into the proceedings in consideration of specific circumstances of the case. An overly strict application is contradicted by R. 44 RoP requiring an “indication” of the facts relied on. “Fairness” may require that the claimant in an action for revocation be allowed to introduce new facts and evidence in response to the Statement of defence. This may include evidence to prove a point already made by the claimant on the common general knowledge of the skilled person, or to rebut evidence brought forward by the defendant on this point. Inventive step (Article 56 EPC) Is to be established in accordance with the Sanofi V Amgen decision .The objective problem must be assessed by establishing what the invention adds to the state of the art, not just by looking at the individual features of the claim, but by comparing the claim as a whole and considering the inventive concept underlying the invention. The objective problem should not contain pointers to the claimed solution . The objective technical problem is limited to “providing a vaporizer that facilitates checking the status of the inserted cartomizer”. And not ‘facilitating to check the status of the battery electrical contacts’ as suggested by VMR Products. The invention in prior art “Pan” is a realistic starting point for an inventive step analysis, as it belongs to the same field of technology and discloses several features similar to those relevant to the invention.
IPPT20251224, UPC CoA, Suinno V Microsoft
Leave to appeal against cost decisions denied. (R. 221.RoP). It is evident from the order that the judge-rapporteur has made a thorough and detailed assessment of the costs
IPPT20251223, UPC COA, Sumi v Syngenta
Application for rehearing withdrawn jointly. proceedings closed. (Rule. 265.1 RoP)
IPPT20251223, UPC COA, Lindal Dispenser v Rocep-Lusol
Joint withdrawal of appeal permitted, proceedings closed. (Rule. 265 RoP). Reimbursement of 60 % of court fees ordered - action withdrawn before proceedings concluded. (Rule. 370.9 (b)(i) RoP)
IPPT20251222, UPC COA, Insulet v EOFLow
Limited access to written pleadings and evidence granted to law firm (Rule. 262. RoP). The documents shall be redacted of personal data prior to making them available. A law firm is also a member of the public within the meaning of R. 262.1 (b) RoP. Commercial interests with the application does not preclude an interest in accessing documents. The law firm does not intend to commercialise access to the requested documents by making them available against payment.
IPPT20251219, UPC CoA, Hefei v Grundfos
€ 75.000 security for costs against Chinese domiciled applicant. Even if the party is solvent, enforcement difficulties alone justify security. An order for security for costs can only be made against applicants, not in their favour (Article 69(4) UPCA). An ‘applicant’ is the party who initiates legal proceedings by filing an application. This means that, at first instance, an application by the claimant for an order to provide security for costs is not admissible. Nor does the infringement claimant’s right to make such an application arise from the fact that the defendant has brought a counterclaim for annulment. Such a counterclaim for annulment is a direct consequence of the infringement action brought by the claimant. An order requiring the defendant and counter-claimant to provide security for costs would unduly impair the defendant’s ability to defend himself. The party entitled to make an application under Art. 69(4) UPCA in the appeal proceedings is the respondent. This generally also applies where the respondent on appeal is the claimant. If both parties lodge an appeal, each party may only require security for costs in respect of the other party’s appeal costs. This also applies in the case of a cross-appeal. An exception applies where the defendant in the appeal proceedings rightly asserts a manifest error in the first-instance decision. In such cases, only the defendant may require security for costs for the appeal proceedings.
IPPT20251219, UPC COA, Viatris Santé v Merz
No need to adjudicate (Rule. 360 RoP). R. 360 RoP also applies to procedural appeals devoid of purpose.
IPPT20251219, UPC COA, Docket Navigator v Syngenta
Request for access to written pleadings and evidence rejected. (Art. 45 UPCA , Rule. 262.1(b) RoP). Copyright is not a general interest that must be observed when a member of the public requests access to the register. Granting access to written pleadings and evidence to a company, which intends to make the information public is not an interest protected under Art. 45 UPCA.
IPPT20251219, UPC COA, UERAN Technology v Xiaomi
Appeal on change of language proceedings dismissed. (Article 49 UPCA). Parties not being domiciled in countries where the language of the proceedings chosen by the claimant is an official language is an important factor in a decision on an application to use the language of the patent. Relevant circumstances should be related to the specific case and the position of the parties, in particular the position of the defendant. If the outcome of balancing of interests is equal, the position of the defendant is the decisive factor.
IPPT20251217, UPC COA, Huawei v TP-Link
Application for suspensive effect successful. (Article 74 UPCA, Rule 223 RoP). TP link denied access to written submissions. Order made without prior hearing of the applicant due to the limited time remaining before the expiry of the implementation period. Applicant given opportunity to comment on the application for suspensive effect within the time limit for responding to the appeal.
IPPT20251209, UPC COA, Bhagat v Oerlikon
Award of damages (Art. 68 (1) UPCA, Rule 112 RoP). An active stakeholder in the industry is expected to monitor the patent landscape before exhibiting its product on the market and should have reasonable grounds to know about the existence of the Patent and the infringing nature of the attacked embodiment. Failure to do is negligent. Submissions relying on general statements are not sufficient to establish a reputational damage of image. Submitted additional evidence does not support the existence of moral prejudice caused to the respondent. It merely indicates that the appellant was present at a trade fair and explains the functioning of the attacked embodiment.
IPPT20251202, UPC COA, Windhager v Bellissa HAAS
Application for suspensive effect of appeal rejected. (Article 74 UPCA , Rule 223 RoP). No obvious inaccuracy in the contested decision, obvious errors of law not proven .Windhager's concern over reputational harm from the recall, removal from distribution channels, and destruction of its goods does not outweigh Belissa's interest in enforcing its patent.
IPPT20251201, UPC CoA, Innovative Sonic v Oppo
Appeal to change the language back to German dismissed. (Article 49(5) UPCA, R. 323.3 RoP.) A party must be able to fully understand what is submitted by a representative on its behalf and what is submitted by the other party. It follows that, if the language of the proceedings is not the language of a party, this is not compensated by the fact that its representative is proficient in the language of the proceedings. The party itself is then still dependent on translations of the statements and evidence lodged on either side. It cannot be accepted that machine translations, even if not always accurate, are sufficient for this purpose. The Court of Appeal has consulted the panel of the Local Division by way of analogy with R. 323.3 RoP. If there has already been a change in the language of the proceedings at an early stage, it is prudent not to change the language again.
IPPT20251128, UPC CoA, Barco v Yealink
Application for interim measures (R. 206 RoP) . R. 19.5 RoP shall apply mutatis mutandis to proceedings for provisional measures. A referral to the competent division is therefore also possible in such proceedings (Rule. 19.5 RoP). Competence of the divisions of the Court of First Instance is a UPC internal matter (Article 33 UPCA). If the division seised considers that a defence raised on the competence of the local division is well-founded and the applicant for provisional measures indicated another division that is competent, it shall refer the application to that division. Absent a request to refer the application for provisional measures to a competent division, the division seised must dismiss the application and order the applicant to pay the costs. Carrying out test purchases in a CMS where a patent is protected, does not amount to “competence manipulation”. There is 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. It follows that it is for the applicant to decide on whom to bring proceedings against. 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. There is no need to look for connecting factors in the territory of the local division seised in relation to each defendant to establish competence. Place of infringement (Article 33(1)(a) UPCA, Article 7(2) Brussels Regulation) The place “where the actual or threatened infringement has occurred or may occur” as referred to in Art. 33(1)(a) UPCA must be interpreted in the same way as the place “where the harmful event occurred or may occur” of Art. 7(2) of the Brussels I Recast Regulation is interpreted in relation to alleged patent infringements, because the provisions have a similar purpose. This does not mean that the UPC has incorporated the substance of Art. 7(2) Brussels I Recast Regulation and its body of case law into Art. 33(1)(a) UPCA. Neither does it mean that competence of the divisions of the Court of First Instance is governed by EU law pertaining to the Brussels I Recast Regulation. Order on the application for provisional measures (Rule 211 RoP) No undue delay justified by potential changes of products on the market. Interim award for costs (Rule 150.RoP) . An interim award of costs may also be ordered in favour of the defendant in proceedings for provisional measures. The fact that R. 211.1(d) RoP, unlike R. 150.2 RoP, does not expressly provide for interim award of costs to the successful party does not preclude this. The same rules apply in proceedings for interim measures as in the main proceedings. An interim award of costs up to the applicable ceiling for cost compensation makes the procedure for cost decision pursuant to R. 150 et seq RoP redundant. The Scale of ceilings for recoverable costs only applies to representation costs , there can be additional costs in the form of recovery of court fees, costs of witnesses, costs of experts, and other expenses ( R. 151(d) RoP).
IPPT20251127, UPC CoA, Vivo v Sun Patent
Request to stay first instance proceedings pending appeal dismissed. (Rule 21.2 RoP) No exceptional circumstances. The mere fact that, the preliminary objection relates to a question of jurisdiction which has never been decided by the court and has triggered a high amount of controversial discussion among scholars, does not constitute exceptional circumstances which can justify a stay. Extension of time limit for submission of statement of defence in first instance rejected in appeal. (Rule 9.3 RoP) Extension of time limits for submissions in the first instance proceedings must, as a general rule, be decided upon firstly by the CFI. Appellant failed to demonstrate that the first instance court overstepped the boundaries of its discretion.
IPPT20251127, UPC CoA, Strabag v Swarco
Like a claimant an appellant may also apply to withdraw an appeal (R. 265.1 RoP). Interest of an intervening party is not relevant. The intervener's appeal in this case is inadmissible pursuant to R. 360 RoP. If the intervener is prevented by the withdrawal of the main party's appeal from the scope of its appeal from bringing about a review of the first-instance decision in terms of fact and law, it may invoke this in any subsequent proceedings against both parties. In this respect, the intervener's binding effect under R. 316.3 RoP is limited. The binding effect of decisions against the intervener. can only apply insofar as the intervener is not restricted in its conduct of the proceedings.
IPPT20251125, UPC CoA, Amgen v Sanofi & Regeneron
Claim Interpretation main claim (Article 69 EPC). If a dependent claim is only adding an additional feature that does not provide a more specific description of the features of the main claim, it generally argues against the possibility of drawing conclusions about the interpretation of the main claim from this dependent claim. Claim interpretation medical use claim (Article 69 EPC). For ‘medical use-format’ claims, it is an inherent claim feature that the claimed product must be objectively suitable for the claimed use, i.e. be therapeutically effective. The implicit requirement that the claimed antibodies must be effective as a medicament for the treatment or prevention of the diseases mentioned in the claim means that not any lowering of cholesterol levels, let alone any binding of PCSK9 to LDLR as Respondents argue, suffices. A therapeutic effect requires that the claimed treatment causes a noticeable improvement of the medical condition of the patient suffering from the disease mentioned in the claim. […] the treatment must be meaningful. That the skilled person does not derive any minimum required effect from the claim or the description does not lead to another conclusion, since the feature of therapeutic effect does not follow from the claim language that is to be interpreted, but from the use of the medical use claim format. Added matter (Article 138(1)(c) EPC). The assessment of added matter is a question of law to be decided on the basis of the facts brought forward by the parties. The facts are the relevant claims and the application as filed. Since the test is whether the relevant claims have basis in the application as a whole, the Court is allowed to look at the entire document. Sufficiency (Article 138(1)(b) EPC). Sufficiency has to be examined on the basis of the patent as a whole (claims, description and drawings), from the perspective of the skilled person with his common general knowledge at the filing or priority date. The test is whether the skilled person is able to reproduce the claimed subject matter on the basis of the patent without any inventive effort and without undue burden. An invention is sufficiently disclosed if the patent specification shows the skilled person at least one way – and in case of functional features: one technical concept – of performing the claimed invention. Where a claim contains one or more functional features, it is not required that the disclosure includes specific instructions as to how each and every conceivable embodiment within the functional definition(s) should be obtained. The burden of presentation and proof lies with Respondents as the party invoking invalidity of the patent. A reasonable amount of trial and error does not prevent the invention from being enabled. Inventive step Article 56 EPC). Same as UPC CoA Meril v Edwards of the same date with added criteria on “reasonable expectation of success” A claimed solution is obvious if the skilled person would have taken the next step in expectation of finding an envisaged solution of his technical problem. This is generally the case when the results of the next step were clearly predictable, or where there was a reasonable expectation of success. The burden of proof that the results were clearly predictable or the skilled person would have reasonably expected success, i.e. that the solution he envisages by taking the next step would solve the objective problem, lies on the party asserting invalidity of the patent. A reasonable expectation of success implies the ability of the skilled person to predict rationally, on the basis of scientific appraisal of the known facts before a research project was started, the successful conclusion of that project within acceptable time limits. 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. Envisaged practical or technical difficulties as well as the costs involved in testing whether the desired result will be obtained when taking a next step may also withhold the skilled person from taking that step. On the other hand, the stronger a pointer towards the claimed solution, the lower the threshold for a reasonable expectation of success. The fact that other persons or teams were working contemporaneously on the same project does not necessarily imply that there was a reasonable expectation of success.
IPPT20251125, UPC CoA, Meril v Edwards
“Same parties” must be identical parties (Article 33(4) UPCA, Article 29 BR). Limited review in appeal of subsequent (third) application to amend the patent given margin of discretion of the judge-rapporteur (R. 50.2 RoP, R. 263 RoP). Claim construction (Article 69 EPC). As a general rule, a product or process presented as an embodiment by the patent specification may be considered covered by the patent claims. Novelty and added matter are distinct legal concepts and are not governed by identical requirements (Article 54 EPC, Article 138(1)(c) EPC. As a general rule, a specific disclosure, such as a disclosure of the combination of features A and B, takes away the novelty of a more general patent claim claiming feature A as such. In contrast, a patent claim claiming feature A as such may extend beyond a more specific disclosure of the combination of A and B in the application. General principles regarding inventive step (Article 56 EPC). Different approaches for assessing inventive step, like the problem-solution-approach or a more holistic approach, are merely guidelines to assist in the establishment of inventive step […] that, when properly applied, should and generally do lead to the same conclusion. . In case of infringement, not granting an injunction requires a special reason (Article 63 UPCA, Article 11 Enforcement Directive) such as if an injunction would be disproportionate taking into consideration not only the interest of the parties to the litigation but also interest of third parties such as patients (Article 3 Enforcement Directive). Interim award of costs (Art. 69(1) UPCA, R. 150(2) RoP) As a general rule, the successful party is not entitled to an interim reimbursement of representation costs of more than 50% of the ceiling of recoverable costs.
IPPT20251124, UPC CoA, Suinno v Microsoft
Application for suspensive effect of appeal rejected (R.223 RoP, Article 74.1 UPCA). The requirement of exceptional circumstances has to be established by the applicant. Suinno has no evidence of exceptional circumstances which would justify why the lodging of the appeal shall have suspensive effect. Microsoft not heard as the decision on application for suspensive effect is to be made without delay (R. 223.3 RoP) . No demonstration that PCD’s findings and considerations constitute manifest errors. Suinno has merely claimed that it would be unreasonable for Microsoft to proceed with the enforcement of the costs decisions without establishing that the impugned decision is manifestly erroneous.
IPPT20251107, UPC CoA, OTEC v STEROS
Preliminary injunction set aside (Article 25 UPCA, Article 62 UPCA). More likely than not that the nonconductive fluid under feature 1.2 is not reproduced by the attacked embodiment. STEROS has failed to demonstrate that the attacked embodiment, namely the electropolishing medium EF 16-11 with solid particles, contains a non-conductive liquid immiscible in the conductive solution which does not significantly conduct electric current according to the above claim construction, that is with conductivity no greater than 10 micronS/cm. Claim construction feature 1.2 (Article 69 EPC). When considering an emulsion as the non-conductive fluid under feature 1.2, the electrical conductivity of the overall emulsion shall be assessed, not that of each ingredient of the emulsion. Although claim 1 of the patent does not set the specific details on the configuration of the non-conductive fluid under feature 1.2, the description under the general heading [...] citly refers to non-conductive fluids based on emulsified systems as one type of non-conductive fluid [0088]. Experimental data not disclosed in the patent specification are, as a general rule, not relevant to the interpretation of the patent claims. Person skilled in the art would understand that the non-conductivity of the non-conductive fluid matters only after it has been combined with the polymeric particles and conductive solution in the percentages by mass as indicated in Table 1 to become the electrolytic medium protected as final product in patent claim 1.
IPPT20251107, UPC CoA, Lepu v Occlutech
Application for suspensive effect appeal unfounded (R. 223 RoP, Article 74 UPCA). Lepu has failed to demonstrate that the Hamburg Local Division’s findings and considerations constitute manifest errors, i.e. factual findings or legal considerations that are clearly untenable even on the basis of a summary assessment. In addition, Lepu argues that enforcing the provisional injunction would cause damage to its reputation. However, it failed to demonstrate that its interests in preventing such damage outweigh Occlutech’s interests in preventing the imminent patent infringement, as established by the Hamburg Local Division.
IPPT20251106, UPC CoA, Black Sheep Retail v HL Display
Application for suspensive effect of order to communicate information unfounded (R. 223 RoP, Article 74 UPCA, Article 67 UPCA). Communication of information belongs to measures that, when so ordered, are necessary to ensure a high level of protection. It is thus only under exceptional circumstances that the enforcement of such measures may be suspended. If the defendant can reasonably foresee that the orders and evidence requested by the claimant may require it to disclose confidential information, this should be raised by the defendant during the proceedings on the merits.
IPPT20251105, UPC CoA, Seoul Viosys v expert
Added matter (Article 138(1)(c) EPC, Article 123(2) EPC, Article 153(4) EPC). The court may, ex officio, find that the skilled person cannot derive a corresponding disclosure from the earlier application. This finding must be determined on the basis of the skilled person's understanding when reading the earlier application in its entirety. With a translation of an international application into one of the official languages of the EPO the applicant submits the application documents to the EPO in the language of the proceedings and it can be assumed prima facie that such a translation submitted by the patent applicant himself accurately reflects the content of the international application in the language of the application. Third parties and the court may, when assessing the inadmissible extension, rely prima facie on the translation of the application submitted by the patent proprietor to the EPO and published by it. If the patent proprietor claims that this translation is incorrect, he must prove the inaccuracy.
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, 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.
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.
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 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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
IPPT20250825, UPC CoA, Sun Patent v Vivo
Application for suspensive effect appeal of confidentiality club regime rejected (R. 262A RoP, R. 223 RoP). The appeal will not become devoid of purpose as a result of not granting the application for suspensive effect. The information protected under R. 262A RoP will still be confidential as the employees from respondent will still be obliged to maintain confidentiality. In the event appellant succeeds in appeal, the access to the information will be removed.
IPPT20250821, UPC CoA, Microsoft v Suinno
Request for rectification rejected (R. 353 RoP, R. 356.3 RoP). No clerical mistake or obvious slip as the impugned decision, the Court of Appeal ruled on the basis of the request filed by Microsoft in its Request for discretionary review filed on 22 April 2025, which did not include a request that a further decision by default shall be final and that Suinno be put on notice pursuant to R. 356.3 RoP.
IPPT20250821, UPC CoA, Seoul v expert e-Commerce
A request for further submission made after the oral hearing should generally be denied (R. 36 RoP). There is no need to respond to the court’s introduction or to summarise the oral hearing.
IPPT20250821, UPC CoA, LIFE 365 v Lama & HP
Withdrawal of application to intervene in proceedings that have been closed granted (R. 265 RoP, R. 313 RoP). In the absence of specific provisions relating to the withdrawal of an application to intervene filed in accordance with the provisions of Rule 313 RoP, Rule 265 RoP shall apply by analogy to the withdrawal of an application to intervene.
IPPT20250821, UPC CoA, Barco v Yealink
Request for simultaneous interpretation into Mandarin Chinese rejected (R. 109.2 RoP). In the absence of any consent by the Court to hear witnesses or experts at an oral hearing in a language other than the language of the proceedings, and absent any interpretation need for the judges, a Request for simultaneous interpretation during the oral hearing must be justified by the requesting party. If R. 109.2 RoP is applied, the arrangements for simultaneous translation are made by the Court. The costs are initially borne by the parties but can ultimately be compensated as costs of the proceedings. If, on the other hand, R. 109.4 RoP is applied, the party engages the interpreter and the costs are borne solely by that party (R. 109.4 and .5 RoP).
IPPT20250821, UPC CoA, Kodak v Fujifilm
Request for confidentiality order in appeal rejected as superfluous (R. 262A RoP). Applicant has confirmed that the information to be protected in the appeal proceedings is not different from the information already protected in the CFI orders.
IPPT20250820, UPC CoA, expert e-Commerce v Seoul Viosys
Leave to appeal - request to refer questions to the CJEU denied (R. 221 RoP, Article 21 UPCA). Right to seek a cost decision (Article 69 UPCA) elapses after expiry of the one month time limit (R. 151 RoP). Can only be remedied through reestablishment of rights (R. 320 RoP). UPCA and RoP must be interpreted in a manner that is consistent with EU law (Article 20 UPCA). The UPC cannot ask to the CJEU to interpret the UPCA or the RoP: a referral of questions to the CJEU on interpretation of Art. 69 UPCA and R. 151 RoP as suggested by expert cannot be made. For there to be jurisdiction of the CJEU (Article 21 UPCA) the request for a preliminary ruling must concern a rule of EU law other than the Charter applicable to the case in the main proceedings. No reason to refer any questions to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling regarding the one month time limit of R. 151 RoP (Article 14 Enforcement Directive). The provision is not complex. The requirement does not go beyond what is necessary to achieve their objective. The provision clearly does not disproportionately affect the party’s right to effective judicial protection. In addition R. 320 RoP provides for re-establishment of rights.
IPPT20250815, UPC CoA, RiVOLUTION v Cilag
Application for suspensive effect unsuccessful because the reasons for the decision are not yet available (R. 223 RoP). If, as in this case, the grounds for the decision are not yet available, an obvious error in the contested decision can only be assumed if it is possible to identify an obvious error without knowledge of the grounds for the decision. This is the case, for example, if the operative part of the decision pronounces a legal consequence that does not result from either the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court or the Rules of Procedure. 15-days deadline for filing the grounds of an appeal only begins to run upon delivery of a reasoned decision (R. 224. 2(b) RoP),
IPPT20250815, UPC CoA, Sun Patent Trust v Vivo Mobile
Application for suspensive effect of appeal inadmissible absent a pending appeal (R. 223.1 RoP, Art. 74 UPCA). In cases of extreme urgency the applicant may apply at any time without formality for an order for suspensive effect to the standing judge pursuant to R. 223.4 RoP. Nevertheless, for this provision to be applicable, the applicant must first have lodged a Statement of appeal (R. 224.1 RoP) and paid the appeal fee in accordance with R. 228 RoP. Lodging the Statement of grounds of appeal is not a prerequisite (R. 224.2 RoP).
IPPT20250815, UPC CoA, Ballinno v UEFA
Security deposit for legal costs released with consent of parties (R. 158 RoP). R. 352.2 RoP, applied by analogy.
IPPT20250814, UPC CoA, Barco v Yealink
Application for leave to change the claim rejected (R. 263 RoP). An application must explain why such change was not included in the original pleading. Leave shall not be granted if, all circumstances considered, the party seeking the amendment cannot satisfy the Court that (a) the amendment in question could not have been made with reasonable diligence at an earlier stage; and (b) the amendment will not unreasonably hinder the other party in the conduct of its action. Leave to limit a claim in an action unconditionally shall always be granted. Request for exchange of further written pleadings rejected (R. 36 RoP, R. 222 RoP). Parties are entitled to make references to what was said at the oral hearing, subject of course to the duty to not misrepresent cases or facts. If the opposing party experiences a need to nuance or correct statements it made at the oral hearing, it can do so in the Statement of grounds of appeal.
IPPT20250813, UPC CoA, Boehringer Ingelheim v Zentiva
Succesfull appeal: preliminary injunction granted because of imminent infringement (Article 62 UPCA, R. 206 RoP). In the context of marketing of generics, the mere application for a marketing authorisation by a generics company does not amount to an imminent infringement, nor does the grant of such an authorisation create one. Completion of the national procedures for health technology assessment, pricing and reimbursement for a generic medicine can amount to an imminent infringement. Whether a premature Prior Evaluation Procedure (PEP) application can constitute imminent infringement depends on what can be done on the Portuguese market during the period before the patent expires. Obtaining of PEP long before the expiry of the patent without any justification can be an indication that the implementer is setting the stage for infringing acts. The absence of any hard mechanism to stop an infringing offer of the products, and the absence of prenotification being immediately visible to third parties to allow action to be taken by the patent holder to prevent infringement creates expectations from public – as well as private – hospitals that the generics will be offered ahead of patent expiry. This gives credence to the claim that the preliminary measures are necessary. As per Art. 34 UPCA, decisions of the Court shall cover the territory of those Contracting Member States for which the patent has effect. Injunctions, as a rule, will cover all those Contracting Member States. A restriction requires the presence of certain circumstances, such as when a claimant has restricted the territorial scope of its action (Art. 76(1) UPCA). Application for an order to communicate information of existing infringement denied (Article 67 UPCA). When there is no allegation of any completed infringement and no indication that the requested information actually exists, as well as any explanation that the requested information is reasonably necessary for the purpose of advancing that party's case, the purpose of such an order is lacking. Although national law is a source of law pursuant to Art. 24 UPCA, it is for the parties to bring forward facts and evidence about the content of national law and its application.
IPPT20250812, UPC CoA, Lionra v Cisco
Undisputed extension for submission Statement of response as Cisco did not have access to the unredacted version of the appeal when it filed its statement of appeal (R. 262A RoP, R. 235 RoP). Extension limited to only two weeks since the information concerned is a relatively small portion of the grounds of appeal.
IPPT20250801, UPC CoA, Strabag & Chainzone v Swarco
Restrictions on access to and use of information by a party and its representatives may only be subject to restrictions in accordance with R. 262A RoP. An application under Rule 262.2 RoP does not automatically grant provisional protection against the disclosure of information by the other party. A party's written submissions and evidence are, in principle, made directly accessible to the other party without any restrictions as to its use or recipients, unless a simultaneous request is made under R. 262A.1 RoP when the document is lodged. R. 262.2 RoP relates only to a limitation of access to documents to the public. An applicant who does not request protection of the relevant information at the time of its submission does not take the necessary confidentiality measures. This results in the information losing its character as a trade secret. For this reason a request under R. 262A.3 RoP cannot be granted at a later stage. Trade secret product characteristics are those that are not readily available to third parties but can only be determined after time-consuming analysis (Article 58 UPCA, Article 2 Trade Secrets Directive). Scope of confidentiality obligation (Article 58 UPCA, R. 262A RoP). Confidentiality requests cannot be so broad so as to prevent a party from divulging to third parties information that it obtained through legal means outside of the procedure (such as through its own measurements or tests)
IPPT20250724, UPC CoA, Late filed application representative
Late filed application to be registered as representative on the basis of “other qualifications” under Rule 12.1(a) EPLC Rules after the expiry of the one year transition period denied (Article 48(2) UPCA). A re-establishment of rights under R. 320 RoP is not possible because the RoP are not applicable to the EPLC Rules Even if the RoP would be applicable, the deadline from R. 12.1 EPLC Rules is not a deadline that could be subject to a re-establishment of right since the wording refers to the fact that certain courses and certificates “shall … be deemed as appropriate” which implies that this is not a procedural deadline but a material provision.
IPPT20250724, UPC CoA, OTEC v Steros
Further written pleadings allowed in appeal of granted PI (R.36 RoP) with respect to the new experiment performed by STEROS regarding the alleged embodiment of the patent in dispute and the argumentation relating to the same under para. 50 to 65 of the Statement of Response of 15 July 2025. Under R. 36 RoP it is reasonable, in the context of an appeal on provisional measures, to grant appellant a time limit of no more than two weeks to lodge the further written pleading
IPPT20250724, UPC CoA, Hanshow v Vusion
IPPT20250724, UPC CoA, HP v Lama
Withdrawal of appeal by party consent (R. 265 RoP)
IPPT20250723, UPC CoA, Visibly v Easee
Withdrawal of appeal by party consent (R. 265 RoP). A stay of proceedings does not prevent the possibility of withdrawal (R. 311 RoP)
IPPT20250722, UPC CoA, Philips v Belkin
Withdrawal of application for costs allowed without hearing Belkin (R. 265 RoP). Even without the withdrawal, no decision on the merits would have been issued, as the Court of First Instance has jurisdiction for applications for the determination of costs. No decision on costs is required here. As a rule, even the successful party bears the costs of the cost assessment proceedings (R. 150 RoP).
IPPT20250715, UPC CoA, Valinea v Tiru
Appeal ex parte order to preserve evidence and inspect premises rejected (R. 194 RoP, R. 196 RoP). When examining an Application for preserving evidence, the Court exercises its discretion. Urgency. It is necessary to distinguish between the assessment of urgency in the context of an Application for preserving evidence (R. 194.2(a) RoP) and the assessment of urgency in the context of an Application for provisional measures (R. 209.2(b) RoP). Urgency (R. 194.2 RoP) can be present if the evidence may become difficult to access after a given date or action. Under normal circumstances, a two month period from becoming aware of possible infringement to making the application to preserve evidence does not negatively affect the urgency. Risk of destruction (R. 194.2(c) RoP, R. 197.1 RoP). The risk of the destruction or unavailability of the evidence, as a criterion for assessing the merits of ex parte measures, concerns both access to the allegedly infringing furnace and the associated technical documentation. The assessment of the risk in question must be based on the probability (R. 194.2(c) RoP) or the demonstrable risk (R. 197.1 RoP) of evidence being destroyed or otherwise ceasing to be available, and not on the certainty of its disappearance or unavailability. Applicant’s duty of candour (R.192.3 RoP). Unlike with provisional measures, the Court does not have to be satisfied – with a sufficient degree of certainty – that the patent is valid in order to grant an order to preserve evidence.
IPPT20250712, UPC CoA, Microsoft v Suinno
Impugned order revoked and decision by default dismissing the infringement action given against Suinno for failure to provide security for costs (R. 355.2 RoP, R. 158.5 RoP). Decision by default of R. 355.2 RoP only applies when a decision by default is sought "against the defendant of the claim". It does not apply when a decision by default is requested by the defendant against the claimant because the claimant failed to take a step within the time limit foreseen in the RoP or set by the Court or it failed to appear at an oral hearing pursuant to R. 355.1(a) and (b) RoP. The rationale underlying R. 355.2 RoP is that a decision by default against the defendant by which the Court orders the remedy sought by the claimant or the counter-claimant does not only require that the Court finds that the conditions mentioned in R. 355.1 (a) or (b) RoP are met but also finds that the conditions, that the order of the remedy sought presupposes, are met based on the facts that are put forward by the claimant which justify the claims, providing the procedural conduct of the defendant does not preclude to give such decision. The effectiveness of security for costs ordered under R. 158 RoP is ensured by the power granted to the Court under RoP 158.5 RoP to give a decision by default if the party bound to provide a security for costs fails to do so. It is only under exceptional circumstances that the Court may derogate from this general rule and the reference to the status quo of the action may not justify such a derogation.
IPPT20250712, UPC CoA, Suinno v Microsoft
Central Division has not exceeded the boundaries of its discretion in setting the amount of the security equal to 50% of the ceiling, meaning at € 300,000 (R. 158 RoP). Suinno's argument that the security for costs is "not commensurate with the real work it takes to communicate non-infringement or lack of validity to the Court" is not sufficiently substantiated. Its argument that a security for costs in the amount of € 100,000 is consistent with other security for costs already granted in the UPC do not give more reason to decrease the amount of the security for costs either, as it does not address the amount of legal costs and other expenses to be incurred by Microsoft in this particular case.
IPPT20250710, UPC CoA, OTEC Präzisionsfinish v Steros
No suspensive effect for appeal against preliminary injunction (Article 74 UPCA, R. 223 RoP). It is not apparent from OTEC’s submissions that OTEC was prevented at the oral hearing from also making statements on infringement and validity and within the time frame granted (see R.113.1 RoP). Certain of OTEC’s statements at the oral hearing that have not been taken into account in the impugned order, may have been implicitly considered and found to be inadequate for challenging Steros' submissions. Nor does the impugned order manifestly lack reasoning which would justify the granting of suspensive effect.
IPPT20250709, UPC CoA, Chint v JingAo
Security for costs granted against claimant residing in China (Art. 69(4) UPCA, R.158 RoP). The lack of experience in enforcing UPC cost decisions in China, does not rule out the possibility that enforcement will be burdensome. The fact that China is outside the EU is a relevant factor. A history of litigants having difficulties enforcing judgments in China is an important factor. The fact that China has a formal procedure to enforce judgments does not detract from the fact that this procedure can, in practice, be burdensome.
IPPT20250703, UPC CoA, Tandem v Roche
Court fee 60% refunded after settlement before closure of written procedure as per R. 370.9(c)(i) RoP
IPPT20250703, UPC CoA, NST v Qualcomm
Only one US attorney granted access to the confidential information (R. 262A RoP). NST has not demonstrated that it is necessary to grant access to more than one trusted US attorney to serve as a link between NST and the UPC representatives. This access does not imply that information can be cross-used.
IPPT20250703, UPC CoA, Tiroler v SSAB
Determination of costs following a withdrawal of an action is subject to the ordinary rules (R. 265 RoP, R. 150 et seq. RoP). The legal review on appeal of a decision as per art. R. 150 RoP is limited to a marginal review of whether the judge-rapporteur’s assessment of costs results in the successful party being compensated for legal costs and other expenses beyond what is reasonable and proportionate, or otherwise deviates from the principles inherent in Art. 69(1) UPCA, as specified in R. 150 et seq. RoP.
IPPT20250703, UPC CoA, OrthoApnea
Action withdrawn by appellant with consent. Appellant to pay costs of the appeal as the unsuccesfull party (R. 265 RoP), Article 69(1) UPCA)
IPPT20250703, UPC CoA, Advanced Bionics v Med-El
Withdrawal of appeal by party consent (R. 265 RoP).
IPPT20250701, UPC CoA, Easee v Visibly
Appeal from order to provide security stayed in entirety for the time that the CFI proceedings are stayed as ordered by the Hamburg Local Division because of insolvency (R. 295m RoP, R. 311.1 RoP). During the stay of the proceedings Easee is not obliged to provide the ordered security and that during the stay of the proceedings both appeals are devoid of purpose. This justifies the stay of the appeal proceedings.
IPPT20250626, UPC CoA, Easee v Visibly
Suspensive effect granted for appeal from order to provide security by defendant in infringement action because of manifest error (R. 223 RoP, Article 69(4) UPCA). After the impugned order was issued, in other proceedings, the Court of Appeal has ruled that Art.69(4) UPCA does not provide a legal basis for an order to provide a security for costs at the request of a claimant in an infringement action and that a security for costs may also not be requested by such claimant in response to a counterclaim lodged by the defendant in the infringement action (UPC_CoA_393/2025, APL_20694/2025 AorticLab vs. Emboline). As it is clear from the reasons of the AorticLab vs. Emboline order, the principles apply regardless of the circumstances of the individual case. Outstanding issue regarding competence of law firm (Article 48 UPCA, R. 285 RoP) to file the appeal and the application for suspensive effect regarding the Easee companies in view of the insolvency of both entities having formally declared insolvent at the time when these motions were filed.
IPPT20250626, UPC CoA, Ballinno v Kinexon
Request rejected to release € 56.000 security placed by Ballinno (Article 69(4) UPCA, R. 158 RoP). The evidence presented by Ballinno on the balance on its bank account is insufficient since in the event of a procedural loss, Ballinno must be able to cover both its own litigation costs – which may well exceed the applicable ceiling – and that of the other parties. The provision of security does not hamper Ballinno’s access to justice. The disposal of an action under R. 360 RoP following a withdrawal does not necessarily preclude the application of the principle that the unsuccessful party must bear the costs (Article 69(1) UPCA). Under the circumstances of the case it is not necessary to examine the merits of the case to determine who the successful part is (one party unsuccessful in both instances)
IPPT20250623, UPC CoA, Sumi v Syngenta
Court fees are considered paid on time (R. 371 RoP) if an order to transfer the due amount to the Court’s bank account has been given to a bank at the time of lodging the relevant pleading or application, provided the payment is subsequently received in the Court’s bank account. This interpretation allows the applicant to use the full time limit granted by the RoP and UPCA. A lodging party is therefore considered not to have paid the court fee if the payment is not received in the Court’s bank account. In such a case, the lodging party must be deemed not to have made the necessary arrangements for the fee payment.
IPPT20250623, UPC CoA, Arkyne v Plant-e
Settlement confirmed by the Court (R. 365.1 RoP). The request for confidentiality from the public under R. 262.2, 365.2 RoP will be decided once a R. 262.1(b) RoP request is made by a member of the public. The confidentiality interests of the parties are protected by the order of the court that only the decision including the redacted version of the settlement shall be entered on the register.
IPPT20250620, UPC CoA, AorticLab v Emboline
Security for costs can only be requested by defendants (Article 69(4) UPCA, R. 158 RoP). Article 69(4) UPCA contains deliberate language to restrict the possibility to request a security order to a defendant. R. 158 RoP cannot be interpreted as merely extending the Court’s powers beyond those explicitly provided in Article 69(4) UPCA. A legal basis for the possibility for a claimant requesting an order that the defendant provide security for costs cannot be found in the Enforcement Directive. The claimant in an infringement action also cannot request security for costs in the counterclaim for revocation action, as the counterclaim is intrinsically linked to the infringement action and defences can only be brought by way of a counterclaim for revocation.
IPPT20250619, UPC CoA, Alexion v Amgen
Application for rehearing (R. 245 RoP, Article 81 UPCA)) rejected as not allowable. The legislator has explicitly chosen that decisions by the Court of Appeal are to be final. The literal wording of Art. 81(1) UPCA makes clear that a rehearing may exceptionally be granted only if the decision suffers from one of these serious deficiencies. A rehearing is thus not a regular appeal proceeding, but an extraordinary legal remedy. Only fundamental procedural defects can be the basis for a rehearing. Mere errors of any kind cannot be a ground for an application for rehearing. A defect may only be considered fundamental if it can be established that without the defect the same decision would not have been taken. The Court must consider all arguments brought forward by the parties, but it is, however, not required to explicitly and exhaustively address in its order or decision each and every argument advanced by a party in detail in the order or decision.
IPPT20250618, UPC CoA, ILME v Phoenix
Appeal has become devoid of purpose (R. 360 RoP) after the withdrawal of the infringement action has been allowed and the infringement proceedings have been declared closed. No need to submit a request for withdrawal of the appeal pursuant to R. 265 RoP. Appeal must be dismissed pursuant to R. 360 RoP. No need to make a decision on costs.
IPPT20250617, UPC CoA, Knaus Tabbert v Yellow Sphere
Inadmissible application (“Gegenvorstellung”) based on R. 9.1 RoP regarding the Court of Appeal’s order of 21 may 2025 in which the application for suspensive effect of the appeal against the impugned order was rejected (Article 74 UPCA, R. 223 RoP). This provision relates to the Court's authority to issue procedural orders during ongoing proceedings. However, it does not give the Court the power to amend or revoke orders that conclude proceedings. The right to an effective remedy under Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFREU) does not afford a right of access to a second level of adjudication but only to a court or tribunal. Applicable law; autonomous UPCA law (Article 24 UPCA). The legal framework in Austria and Germany is not decisive for the interpretation of Art. 82(2) UPCA because Art. 82(2) UPCA contains an independent provision that must be interpreted autonomously.
IPPT20250606, UPC CoA, Hanshow v VusionGroup
A decision on cost for provisional measures proceedings must be applied for within one month of service of the decision on the merits (R. 151.1 RoP). If no proceedings on the merits are pending the on month time limit begins with the service of the first instance order for provisional measures. The time limit of R. 151 RoP is not included in the list of time limits contained in R. 9.4 RoP that cannot be extended by the Court under R. 9.3 RoP. However, R. 9 RoP is to be understood as applying to pending proceedings. Upon expiry of the one-month period pursuant to R. 151 RoP, the substantive right of the successful party to apply for a decision on costs expires. R. 151 RoP is to be regarded as materially preclusive. Re-establishment of rights (R. 320 RoP) is generally applicable and must be regarded as a general rule in this case. A party may apply for re-establishment within one month of the reason for missing the deadline being removed – but in any case within six months of the missed deadline.
IPPT20250606, UPC CoA, NUC v Hurom
Suspensive effect rejected (Article 74 UPCA, R. 223 RoP) of appeal against order to communicate information (Article 67 UPCA, Article 8 Enforcement Directive). The provisions of Art. 67 UPCA mirror those of Article 8 of the Enforcement Directive” which, is designed to ensure a high level of protection in all the Member States of the European Union, and allows precise information to be obtained on the origin of the infringing goods or services, the distribution channels and the identity of any third parties involved in the infringement (Enforcement Directive, Preamble para. 21). It is thus only under exceptional circumstances that the enforcement of such measures may be suspended under R. 223 RoP. Even if disclosure of the information pending the appeal would to some extent undermine the purpose of the appeal against this part of the impugned decision, it must be shown that the appeal becomes devoid of purpose without suspensive effect and that its interests in maintaining the confidentiality of the information pending the appeal outweigh the respondent’s interests in immediately obtaining the relevant information.
IPPT20250604, UPC CoA, Hybridgenerator v HGSystem
Penalty payments because of alleged failure to comply with the terms of a first instance court order, are to be decided by a panel of the Court (instead of a single judge) upon request of the other party or of its own motion (R. 354.4 RoP. The procedure foreseen in R. 264 RoP shall apply (opportunity to be heard). At this stage, there is a right of the other party to be heard. It can be left open whether it would have been possible for the parties to agree on a single judge (R. 345.6 RoP).
IPPT20250603, UPC CoA, Tandem v Roche
Settlement confirmed by court as per R. 365 RoP. Request for confidentiality under R. 262.2 RoP not confirmed and will only be dealt with when a request is made under R. 262.1(b) RoP
IPPT20250602, UPC CoA, XSYS v Esko
The UPC has competence regarding acts committed before entry into force of the UPCA and during the opt-out of a patent (Article 32 UPCA, Article 83 UPCA). The wording of Art. 32(1) UPCA does not provide for any temporal limitation of the exclusive co.mpetence of the Court. The option to opt-out is limited to the choice of forum and does not provide, as a result of such a choice. Since Art. 32 UPCA was in effect at the time of deciding on the competence of the Court, it is not being applied retroactively to determine competence. When deciding to withdraw the opt-out, the patent proprietor chooses to bring the patent back under the (exclusive) competence of the Court. The provisions on withdrawal do not provide for a partial or limited withdrawal
IPPT20250530, UPC CoA, Belkin v Philips
A party is adversely affected and allowed to appeal if a request is not fully granted (R. 220.1 RoP). Only the grant of suspensive effect by the Court of Appeal, rather than the mere filing of an application, suspends the enforceability of the decision (Article 74(1) UPCA, R. 223 RoP) Recurring penalty payment (Article 82.4 UPCA, R. 354.4 RoP). The principle of nulla poena sine culpa means that a penalty sum shall only be imposed when the defendant's fault can be established. Maximum penalty amount payable must be defined in the order providing for a penalty. The appropriate amount of the penalty payment can only be reliably determined once the nature and extent of the breach of the order have been established. The fact that only a maximum penalty payment for each day of non-compliance (up to € 50.000) was provided – rather a specific amount – does not give rise to concerns. The amount of the penalty payment (later) to be imposed does not solely depend on the importance of the order that is reinforced with a penalty. After a breach has occurred, the Court must, in exercising its discretion, determine the amount of the penalty payment in a manner that is adapted to the circumstances and proportionate to the breach of the order. Relevant factors in this regard include, among others, aspects such as the severity of the established breach, its duration, and the defendant's ability to pay. Time period for communication of information (Article 67 UPCA): Must be determined in the decision on the merits. Must be reasonable, taking into account the specific circumstances of the individual case. In determining the length of this period, particular consideration must be given, amongst other, to the scope of the information required to be provided, the time period to which the disclosure relates, and the resources available to the obliged party. Begins upon notification pursuant to R. 118.8, first sentence, RoP – must be included in the claimant’s corresponding application. If, as in the present case, no time period is specified in the final decision, it is the responsibility of the claimant to set a time period for the provision of information when notifying the defendant of the intention to enforce the decision. Failure to submit the information in electronic form does not per se constitute violation of an order under Article 67 UPCA.
IPPT20250528, UPC CoA, Centripetal v Palo Alto
Order rejecting application for the preservation of evidence dated 3 March 2025 revoked and referred back to the Court of First Instance. (Rule 192 RoP). Standard of proof for orders for provisional and protective measures. (Art. 62, Art. 60 UPCA, R. 198 or R. 213 RoP). Since such orders are issued by summary proceedings where parties have limited opportunities to present facts and evidence, the standard of proof must not be set too high. At the same time, it must not be set too low in order to prevent the defendant from being harmed by an order for a provisional or protective measure that is revoked at a later date. The purpose of an application for preservation of evidence differs from that of an action on the merits. (Article 60 UPCA). If the same standard of proof were applied to an application for preservation of evidence as to an action on the merits, the procedure established by Art. 60 UPCA would lose much of its practical utility . The requirement under Art. 60(1) UPCA to provide reasonably available evidence to support the claim that the patent has been infringed or is about to be infringed is therefore a lower bar than the burden of proof for a claimant in an infringement action. The bar is in particular lower with respect to those aspects of the alleged infringement for which no evidence is reasonably available to the applicant, and for which the orders to preserve and disclose evidence are therefore particularly relevant. Mere speculation that the patent has been infringed, is generally not sufficient to justify an order to preserve evidence. Necessity requirement . A fair balance must be struck between the fundamental rights of the defendant and those of the applicant. (R. 192.2 and R. 199.2 RoP). It follows that the procedure under Art. 60 UPCA can only be used if, and to the extent that, it is necessary for the effective enforcement of a patent. Accordingly, the applicant must provide, in its application, the reasons why the proposed measures are needed. Where the preservation of evidence can be implemented by several equally effective measures, the measure that is least prejudicial to the defendant should be preferred.
IPPT20250528, UPC CoA, Harvard v Nanostring - II
Withdrawal of action and reimbursement of court fees (R. 265 RoP, R. 370 RoP). Written procedure before the Court of Appeal is limited to the submissions of a Statement of appeal and a statement of grounds for appeal and a statement of response, unless a cross-appeal has been lodged. Upon expiry of the period for lodging these statements, the interim procedure begins (R. 239.1 RoP). It follows that, in the present case, the action was not withdrawn before the closure of the written procedure, but before the closure of the interim procedure. Accordingly, Harvard is entitled to a reimbursement of 40% of the Court fees it paid for the appeal pursuant to R. 370.9(b)(ii) RoP, instead of 60% pursuant to R. 370.9(b)(i) RoP.
IPPT20250528, UPC CoA, Harvard v Nanostring - I
Withdrawal of appeal by party consent without decision on costs (R. 265 RoP), following which the order to provide a security becomes devoid of purpose and security is released (Article 69.4 UPCA, R. 158 RoP)
IPPT20250526, UPC CoA, Strabag v Swarco
Application by intervener Chainzone for suspensive effect of appeal rejected (R. 223 RoP, R. 315 RoP). It can be left open whether the intervener is entitled to file an application for suspensive effect of the appeal and in particular whether Chainzone has a legal interest in having the enforcement suspended. It can also be left open whether the admissibility of the application is precluded by the fact that Strabag has already unsuccessfully applied for suspensive effect. Chainzone has failed to (sufficiently substantiated) demonstrate manifest errors in the impugned order or an infringement of fundamental procedural rights on which the decision is based.
IPPT20250523, UPC CoA, NJOY v Juul
Withdrawal of action by party consent (R. 265 RoP)
IPPT20250521, UPC CoA, Knaus Tabbert v Yellow Sphere.
Unsuccessful application for suspensive effect of appeal (Article 74(1) UPCA, R. 223 RoP). The application for suspensive effect must on its own, enable the appeal court to decide on the application, if necessary without further information. References to passages in written pleadings and documents in the first-instance files are permissible, provided that they are specified in sufficient detail. Ordering security for enforcement is not necessary in every case but at the discretion of the Court (Article 82(1) UPCA). The Local Division correctly assumed that it is necessary to weigh the interest of the patent proprietor in the effective enforcement of his property right against the interest of the alleged patent infringer in the effective enforcement of possible claims for damages in the event of a subsequent annulment of the decision. No obvious error in weighing up the interests involved. Given that Knaus Tabbert was aware of the disputed patent and therefore took a calculated risk of patent infringement by marketing the contested embodiments, it is reasonable to refrain from ordering security for enforcement. No obvious error with regard to proportionality by orders for recall, removal from commerce and destruction of not only the contested frames, but the entire caravan. The patent does not protect individual components of minor importance, but rather the basic design of the caravan. Even if the disagreements between the parties, as argued by Knaus Tabbert, are only of a financial nature, the Order for destruction in particular may be justified. No risk of appeal becoming moot. It is true that, in the event of destruction of the contested embodiments, these cannot be reversed. However, Knaus Tabbert is entitled to damages in this case. It does not follow from Knaus Tabbert's submission that its interests are not sufficiently taken into account by the payment of damages. No reason to allow the argument that Yellow Sphere’s financial situation is insufficient to be raised for the first time in appeal. Proceedings for a stay of enforcement, in which the appeal court decides on the application without delay (R. 223.3 RoP) are not suitable for findings on the claimant’s financial circumstances, which – as a rule – can only be made after hearing the opposing party and findings of fact may also be necessary.
IPPT20250520, UPC CoA, Chint v JingAo
Rejected suspensive effect (R. 223 RoP) and expedition of appeal (R. 9.3(b) RoP) of order to provide security in the amount € 200,000 by 6 June 2025. Appeal not devoid of purpose without suspensive effect, nu undue burden (R. 223 RoP) If Chint provides the security and the impugned order is subsequently revoked by the Court of Appeal, Chint may release the security. No undue burden: The mere fact that Chint will have to make arrangements with banks and its internal finance department is not sufficient, taking into account that a suspension of the impugned order may cause delays in the proceedings before the Munich Local Division. Decided without having heard JingAo, since the Court of Appeal must decide on an application for suspensive effect without delay (R. 223 RoP) and the outcome is in favour of JingAo. No justification for expedition of appeal (R. 9.3(b) RoP) at the expense of JingAo’s legitimate interest in having the appeals dealt with within the timeframe provided for by the RoP. The mere fact that a party will have to make arrangements with banks and its internal finance department, or that the impugned order is based on incorrect conclusions and contradictory reasoning is not sufficient.
IPPT20250514, UPC CoA, Hisense v Corning
Request dismissed for discretionary review in appeal of panel confirmation of order of the judge-rapporteur not to separate proceedings against unrelated defendants (R. 220.3 RoP, R. 303.2 RoP). It is at the discretion of the court to separate proceedings. The Court must consider the legitimate interests of both parties and the public interest In a situation such as the present one, where several unrelated companies are involved in the proceedings, the parties can have a legitimate interest in maintaining confidentiality of business information. Furthermore, the legal proceedings should safeguard mutual uncertainty at least as to the timing, extent and details of any future changes in the conduct of competitors on the market. Preventing other defendants from obtaining access to confidential information can be realised by making use of confidentiality clubs (R. 262A RoP).
IPPT20250512, UPC CoA, Ballinno v Kinexon
Admissible appeal against security for costs order brought together with the appeal against the order on provisional measures (R. 220.2 RoP). “Decision” in R. 220.2 RoP also includes “orders” so that an appeal against a security order is admissible when brought together with an appeal against an order where an action is adjudicated. No withdrawal of the action by Ballino (R. 265 RoP). It requests that the security order be reversed and that the main order be set aside and reversed in relation to the cost decision. Action has become devoid of purpose and there is no longer a need to adjudicate on it (R. 360 RoP) after Ballino has withdrawn its request for provisional measures (injunctions, seizure of goods and penalties) on appeal, save for the appeal on security for costs. Cost Allocation (Article 69 UPCA, R. 360 RoP). Disposal of an action pursuant to R. 360 RoP can include a decision on who shall bear the costs; the review can be marginal. Unsuccessful party: party that withdraws the main requests and took the inherent risk in its procedural strategy that the urgent interest in the requests fell away before a final order was rendered must considered as the unsuccessful party and consequently be held to bear the costs of the proceedings. An exception to this may apply where it has been established that the impugned order is based on manifest errors. Where a party, on the other hand, withdrew its requests for lack of urgent interest before a (final) order in the action was rendered, caused by circumstances it could not reasonably have foreseen, and not due to a materialisation of an inherent and foreseeable risk of a deliberate procedural strategy, equity may require a different allocation of costs.
IPPT20250508, UPC CoA, Hybridgenerator v HGSystem
Change of language in appeal of limited scope from Danish to English with the agreement of the parties (Article 49(4) UPCA, R. 322 RoP). No translation of pleadings and evidence
IPPT20250505, UPC CoA, Meril v SWAT
Impugned order granting access to pleadings and evidence (R. 262 RoP) to parties who are not represented set aside as it would compromise the representation requirement (R. 8.1 RoP). Due to inadmissible self-representation, the formal requirements for lodging a Statement of response have not been met (R. 235 RoP). A party not being allowed to represent himself or a co-applicant has to instruct an authorised representative and it is not appropriate for him to lodge an application to change of representative pursuant to R. 293 RoP. Respondents failed to lodge a Statement of response as the submitted Statement of response is not signed by the stated new representative. Reasoned decision (R. 235.3 RoP) or default decision (R. 357.1 RoP): it is the discretion of the Court of Appeal to give a reasoned decision or a default decision. A reasoned decision (R. 235.3 RoP) is a lex specialis of the default decision (R. 357.1 RoP). This means that the remedy of R. 356.1 RoP – an application to set aside that decision within one month of service of the decision by a party against whom a decision by default has been given – applies mutatis mutandis to reasoned decisions. No compensation for costs in relation to applications for access pursuant to R. 262.1(b) RoP. Identifying confidential parts of written pleadings and evidence and requesting confidentiality is something parties may do in advance even though there may never even be a request for access.
IPPT20250430, UPC CoA, Insulet v EOFlow
Successful appeal: provisional injunction and order to communicate information granted (Article 62 UPCA, Article 67 UPCA, R. 206 RoP). Claim interpretation is a matter of law (Article 69 EPC). The Court cannot leave the judicial task of interpreting the patent claim to an expert but has to construe the claim independently. The skilled person is a notional entity that cannot be equated with any real person in the technical field of the invention. Necessity of provisional measures and balance of interests (Article 62(2) UPCA and R. 211.3 RoP). Risk of continuation of infringement (R. 211.2 RoP). Territorial scope (Article 34 UPCA): Cost decision in proceedings for provisional measures (Article 69 UPCA).
IPPT20250430, UPC CoA, Juul v NJOY
Request under R. 295 RoP – supported by both parties – to stay appeal of revocation action granted because of pending Boards of Appeal proceedings in which oral proceedings are on 17 October 2025, while hearing before Court of Appeal would be on 22 September 2025.
IPPT20250428, UPC CoA, Juul v NJOY
Appeal proceedings in revocation action stayed, with agreement of parties, pending the outcome of parallel opposition proceedings before the EPO Boards of Appeal, where the opposition proceedings could be expected to result in a final decision before or just after, in any case rapidly, in relation to the possible date for an oral hearing before the Court of Appeal (R. 295(a) RoP, Article 33(10) UPCA)
IPPT20250425, UPC CoA, Nicoventures v Juul
Access to register after decision (R. 262 RoP) . Written pleadings or evidence that were not yet in the casefile at the time when the request for access was made, but were added to the casefile before a party commented on the request, can be covered by a decision granting access, provided that the request made clear that such documents were encompassed. Blanket requests for access to documents to be added to the case file at a later date cannot be admissible. The granting of immediate access to written pleadings or evidence has been accompanied by the condition that the member of the public is not allowed to file the written pleadings in question, or parts thereof, with other courts or judicial instances such as the EPO Boards of Appeal, or distribute them elsewhere, until the present appeal has been adjudicated or otherwise closed. This does not prevent the member of the public from informing itself of the arguments brought forward in the case before the Court, including prior art, and if it chooses to, use the same arguments or prior art before the Boards of Appeal or elsewhere to support its own cases, or inform the Boards of Appeal that the arguments or prior art have been brought forward in the UPC proceedings
IPPT20250422, UPC CoA, Amazon v Nokia
Appeal against an order rejecting the production of evidence devoid of purpose after withdrawal of infringement action and proceedings are closed (R. 360 RoP,, Art. 59 UPCA, R. 190 RoP). An appeal is devoid of purpose if there is no longer any reason to decide on it. As a result, the appeal has become devoid of purpose.
IPPT20250418, UPC CoA, Meril v Edwards
Suspensive effect appeal rejected. Suspensive effect pursuant to Art. 74 UPCA can only be granted if, on the basis of the circumstances, the appellant's interest in maintaining the status quo until the decision on its appeal exceptionally outweighs the respondent's interest. The mere fact that an appeal is pending against a decision concerning an action and counterclaims for revocation is, however, not sufficient to order suspensive effect of the appeal against the decision in the related infringement action. The enforcer of the injunction contacting distributors of the infringer’s products, does not affect this balance of interests, since the impugned decision does not apply to these third parties.
IPPT20250418, UPC CoA, Scandit v Hand Held Products
Closure of the oral procedure (R. 370.9(b)(iii) RoP). Oral proceedings are concluded with the closing of the oral hearing by the presiding judge, who ensures that the action is ready for decision at the end of the oral hearing (R. 111(b) RoP, to which reference is made in R. 240 RoP on the conduct of oral proceedings before the Court of Appeal).
IPPT20250417, UPC CoA, Kodak v Fujifilm
Suspensive effect appeal rejected (Article 74 UPCA). Kodak has failed to demonstrate that the Court of First Instance’s findings and considerations constitute manifest errors, i.e. factual findings or legal considerations which prove to be untenable already on the basis of a summary assessment. Incorrect understanding of the scope of R. 171.2 RoP regarding uncontested facts. If there is an uncontested fact, this does not imply that the legal consequence for which this fact was submitted automatically follows. It still falls upon the Court to decide whether the facts advanced justify such a legal consequence.
IPPT20250417, UPC CoA, Barco v Yealink
Application to grant suspensive effect for appeal of cost order up to the applicable ceiling of € 112.000 in order dismissing provisional measures rejected (Article 74 UPCA). The risks of problems of enforcement put forward by Barco are not such as to make the appeal devoid of purpose absent suspensive effect (ICPillar vs. ARM,).
IPPT20250414, UPC CoA, Stadapharm v Accord / Novartis
Application for public access to allowed after the main proceeding was withdrawn and the proceedings have thus come to an end (R. 262 RoP). Accord has not objected to the request, and Novartis agreed to the request for access to documents, there is no reason to deny access to the requested documents. Moreover, Novartis does not consider that the documents to be inspected require confidentiality except for the redaction of personal data.
IPPT20250411, UPC CoA, Supponor v AIM Sport
Limited scope for review on appeal of a change or amendments of case (R. 263 RoP) or addition of a party (R. 305 RoP). R. 263 RoP requires that the application shall explain why a requested change or amendment of case was not included in the original pleading. This means that the reasoning must be included in the application. It does not prohibit that the precise wording of the requested amendment is set out in one or more annexes, such as amended Statements of claim with and without tracked changes. Request to add a party (R. 305 RoP) is at the discretion of the court, weighing the evidence provided, the relevant circumstances, the interests of the parties and procedural efficiency. Among the circumstances that the Court may take into account are: whether the claimant was or should have been aware of the alleged infringing acts of such a person at an earlier stage, the involvement of the other parties with that person’s allegedly infringing acts, the effect on the other parties if the party is added as a party and the stage of the proceedings. The level of the duty of presentation and proof of such circumstances is lower when dealing with a request under R. 305 RoP than when dealing with the case on the merits. Risk of irreconcilable decisions: The Local Division rightly took into account a potential risk of irreconcilable decisions if the request would be rejected, and AIM had to initiate separate proceedings against TGI UK.
IPPT20250411, UPC CoA, Ericsson v Motorola
Withdrawal of action by party consent (R. 265 RoP)
IPPT20250403, UPC CoA, EOFLow v Insulet
Withdrawal of an application for leave to appeal against cost decision (R. 221 RoP) allowed pursuant to R. 265 RoP
IPPT20250401, UPC CoA, NJOY v VMR
Appeal rejected as inadmissible by default decisions due to lack of payment of court fees (R. 229.4 RoP)
IPPT20250331, UPC CoA, Scandit v Hand Held Products
Withdrawal of action by party consent (R. 265 RoP). No ruling on costs requested.
IPPT20250331, UPC CoA, ILME v Phoenix
Request to stay first instance because of pending appeal dismissed (R. 21.2 RoP).The proceedings in the present case do not at present require stay the first instance proceedings, but instead, to the extent possible, seek a ruling from the Court of Appeal on the jurisdictional issue raised in the preliminary objections R. 19 Rules of Procedure before the matter proceeds to the merits before the Court of First Instance
IPPT20250328, UPC CoA, ILME v Phoenix
Three days extension until 7 April 225 to file Statement of response (R. 224.2 RoP, R. 9 RoP). Instead of three weeks
IPPT20250326, UPC CoA, Stäubli Tec-Systems
Equity may require prevailing claimant to bear the costs of a revocation action in which the patent holder immediately surrenders the patent at the beginning of the proceedings and the patent holder was not previously contacted (Article 69(1) UPCA). The risk of an opt-out prompted by the contact before filing the action does not inevitably speak against these cost consequences.
IPPT20250324, UPC CoA, Amazon v Nokia
Request for opportunity to comment on Statement of response denied. The written procedure before the Court of Appeal is limited to the submission of a statement of grounds of appeal by the appellant and a statement of response by the respondent. It is fundamentally inconsistent with the written procedure to give Amazon the opportunity to submit a written statement merely a few days before the oral hearing in order to counter the respondent Nokia’s legal arguments, as the oral hearing is specifically intended to serve that purpose.
IPPT20250311, UPC CoA, 10x Genomics v Vizgen
60% refund of court fees after withdrawal before written procedure was completed, 20% refund of court fees after withdrawal before the end of the oral proceedings (R. 370 RoP)
IPPT20250305, UPC CoA, 10x Genomics v Vizgen
Withdrawal of action by party consent (R. 265 RoP))
IPPT20250303, UPC CoA, Sumi Agro v Syngenta
Provisional injunction confirmed. Person skilled in the art (Article 56 EPC). Common general knowledge is knowledge that an experienced person in the field in question is expected to have, or at least to be aware of, to the extent that he knows he could look it up in a book if he needed it. Claim construction – core of the invention (Article 69 EPC). Claim construction relating to feature c is derived from an understanding of the core of the invention, and from a close reading of paras 28 through 31 of the patent specification, together with examples 1 and 2. Infringement more likely than not (Article 25 UPCA, Article 62 UPCA). Syngenta has […] fulfilled its burden – in other words, satisfied the Court that it is more likely than not – that the Kagura 2024 product contains FFA that fall within the range (1 % to 95 % by weight) protected by claim 1 of the patent. More likely than not that the patent is valid. Sumi Agro’s novelty attack fails because it relies on the presence of common general knowledge with the person skilled in the art that rapeseed oil may include a small amount (up to 2 %) of FFA, which has not been demonstrated, (Article 54 EPC). The mere chance that the skilled person could choose such an ingredient is insufficient for a finding of lack of inventive step. (Article 56 EPC). Necessity provisional injunction because price pressure and permanent price erosion can be expected (Article 62 UPCA, R. 206.2 RoP). Syngenta not required to demonstrate and quantify how sales have been affected during the time when both products (Elumis and Kagura) were on the market. Territorial scope – accession of Romania (Article 34 UPCA, R. 222 RoP). When a UPC Signatory State ratifies and accedes, the application of Art. 34 UPCA should be automatic and not subject to limitations, from the day of accession. In view of the general rule in Article 34 of the UPCA, the Court exercises its discretion to allow the application with regard to Romania in the appeal proceeding. Cost decision in inter partes proceedings for provisional measures (Article 69 UPCA) It concludes the action.
IPPT20250303, UPC CoA, Curio Bioscience v 10x Genomics
Withdrawal of appeal without objection (R. 265 RoP)
IPPT20250224, UPC CoA, Biolitec v Light Guide
Unsuccessful appeal of rejection of provisional injunction changing the status quo on the market. Provisional measures require that proceedings on the merits – which offer more procedural safeguards – cannot be awaited (Article 62 UPCA, R. 206 RoP, R. 211 RoP). The requested measures would change the status quo on the market, established years before the grant of the patent. Appellant has not demonstrated that provisional measures are necessary to protect its current market share or prices or for any other purpose that cannot await a decision on the merits. Late filed price erosion argument and auxiliary request covering alleged infringed acts at 2025 trade fair (R. 222.2 RoP). Biolitec has not justified why the argument on price erosion could not reasonably have been raised during the proceedings before the Court of First Instance.
IPPT20250221, UPC CoA, Hanshow v Vusion
Application for default judgment dismissed (R. 357 RoP). The application for leave to appeal against a cost decision is considered to be a Statement of appeal and a statement of grounds for appeal (R. 221 RoP, R. 224 RoP). An application for the determination of costs is a summary procedure, decided in the first instance by the judge-rapporteur (R. 156.2 RoP) and in appeal by the standing judge (R. 221.4 RoP). The application always requires leave to appeal and there is no obligation for the standing judge to hear the other party before allowing the appeal. The application for leave to appeal under R. 221 RoP must already set out the grounds on which the appeal is based. Court fees in case of a granted leave to appeal against cost decision. If a party applies for permission to appeal against a decision on costs, it pays a court fee of € 1.500. If the appeal is allowed, the fee originally paid will not apply, but a fee of € 3.000 will be charged for an appeal against a costs order
IPPT20250219, UPC CoA, NTS v Audi
Release of security (R. 352 RoP) applied by way of analogy after applications for withdrawal of the infringement action were submitted at the Munich LD
IPPT20250219, UPC CoA, Aarke v Sodastream
Withdrawal of appeal – no cost decision requested – reimbursement of costs. R. 265.1 RoP also applies mutatis mutandis to the withdrawal of an appeal.
IPPT20250214, UPC CoA, Abbott v Sibio
Impugned order revoked (Article 75 UPCA) – provisional measures granted (Article 62 UPCA). Claim interpretation (Article 69 EPC). As a general principle of interpretation, means-plus-function features must be understood as any feature suitable for carrying out the function. As an exception to the mentioned general principle, where the function is carried out by a computer or similar apparatus, the means-plus-function features are interpreted as means adapted to carry out the respective steps/functions. Not more likely than not that the patent contains added matter (Article 138(c) EPC). Urgent interest (R. 209.2(b) RoP). Weighing of interest; irreparable harm (Article 60(5) UPCA; Article 62(2) UPCA). No limitation of injunction to specific infringing products (Article 62(1) UPCA). No leave to change claim for the first time in appeal to cover the territory of Ireland (R. 263.2(a) RoP). Measures mentioned in Article 67 UPCA may also be ordered in the framework of provisional measure proceedings, always provided that there is an urgent interest and such measures are proportionate (Article 62 UPCA). No security for enforcement (R. 352.1 RoP). Not substantiated why serious difficulties would be expected in connection with the recovery of any possible damages from Abbott
IPPT20250212, UPC CoA, Daedalus v Xiaomi
Confidentiality club membership rules (R. 262A RoP); number of persons and personal traits. Pursuant to R. 262A.6 RoP the number of persons to whom access is restricted shall be no greater than necessary in order to ensure compliance with the rights of the parties to the legal proceedings to an effective remedy and to a fair trial, and shall include, at least, one natural person from each party and the respective lawyers or other representatives of those parties to the legal proceedings. Whether a particular person may be granted full access under this provision must be determined on the basis of the relevant circumstances of the case, including the role of that person in the proceedings before this Court, the relevance of the confidential information to the performance of that role and the trustworthiness of the person in keeping the information confidential. R. 262A.6 RoP does not require that the person to whom access is given be an employee of a party or a representative within the meaning of Art. 48 of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court (hereinafter: UPCA). Such a requirement does not follow from the wording of the provision and would unduly restrict a party’s freedom to choose its assistants in the proceedings. Therefore, the fact that the US attorneys are neither employees of Daedalus, nor representatives within the meaning of Art. 48 UPCA, does not preclude them from having full access to the confidential information under R. 262A RoP.
IPPT20250212, UPC CoA, Meril v SWAT Medical
Duty to be represented (Article 48 UPCA, R. 8 RoP). Late filed objection. Meril GmbH did not make this objection before the Central Division or in its Statement of appeal and grounds of appeal. The Court of Appeal disregards this submission. (R. 226 RoP and R. 222.2 RoP). Representation is a point of admissibility involving public policy considerations (due process) which the Court may examine at any time, also of its own motion. When a matter such as this is raised by the Court, there can be reason, depending on the circumstances, to provide the party with an opportunity to appoint a representative. Lawyers and European Patent Attorneys are not exempted from the duty to be represented if they themselves are parties in cases before the UPC. Consequently, the fact that Respondent 1 is an authorised representative himself does not relieve him from the requirement of being represented. Respondent 1 is Chair of the Board of directors of SWAT Medical. He holds a high-level management position within SWAT Medical and cannot represent the company. It follows that Respondent 1 is not allowed to represent SWAT Medical.
IPPT20250211, UPC CoA, Suinno v Microsoft
Acting as a representative (Article 48 UPCA) of a legal person not possible for a corporate representative of a legal person, or any other natural person who has extensive administrative and financial powers within the legal person. If the party is a natural person, the representation requirement under Art. 48(1) and (2) UPCA implies that this person is not entitled to represent him or herself. This understanding is based on the term “representation” used in Art. 48(1) and (2) UPCA and the concept of rights and immunities of representatives. Independent representation. One of the objectives of parties being represented by a lawyer is, among other things, to ensure that legal persons are defended by a representative who is sufficiently distant from the legal person which he or she represents. The independent exercise of the duties of a representative is not undermined by the mere fact that the lawyer or the European patent attorney, qualified as a representative under Art. 48(1) or (2) UPCA, is employed by the party he or she represents. A representative who is employed by a party must also act towards the Court as an independent counsellor by serving the interests of his or her clients in an unbiased manner without regard to his or her personal feelings or interests.
IPPT20250124, UPC CoA, DexCom v Abbott - II
Withdrawal of action by party consent (R. 265 RoP). With the closure of the proceedings, the impugned decision will become ineffective.
IPPT20250124, UPC CoA, DexCom v Abbott - I
IPPT20250124, UPC CoA, DexCom v Abbott - III
Withdrawal of action by party consent (R. 265 RoP). The applications to withdraw the infringement action and the counterclaims for revocation are admissible since there is no final decision in the actions in view of the pending appeal, and the Court of Appeal is responsible for deciding on the permissibility of the applications for withdrawal. With the closure of the proceedings, the impugned decision will become ineffective. The conditional application to amend the patent is ancillary to the appeal, and withdrawal of the counterclaim for revocation has the effect of rendering requests for amendment of the patent ineffective.
IPPT20250120, UPC CoA, SharkNinja v Dyson
Inadmissible application for cost decision following decision on provisional measures. An application for a decision for costs can only be lodged within one month after the service of the decision on the merits. (R. 150 RoP). If the applicant does not start proceedings on the merits of the case pursuant to R. 213 RoP, for example, if the application for provisional measures was unsuccessful, R. 150 and 151 RoP do not appear to be applicable, at least on a strict literal reading. However, to fulfil the objectives of Art. 69(1-3) UPCA that the successful party can have its reasonable and proportionate legal costs and other expenses compensated by the unsuccessful party, an application of R. 150 and 151 RoP mutatis mutandis would be justified in that situation.
IPPT20250120, UPC CoA, Amazon v Nokia- II
Penalty payment sanction (Article 82(4)UPCA) on a confidentiality order (Article 58 UPCA) can only be imposed on a party, but not against their representatives, which does not exclude the parties' liability for infringements by their representatives. Insofar as the requests relate to court staff, there is also no legal basis, since neither Rule 262 nor Rule 262A RoP is applicable with regard to court staff. It should also be noted that court staff are subject to a duty of confidentiality that extends beyond their period of service, in accordance with Article 5.3 of the Staff Regulations of Officials and other servants of the Unified Patent Court.
IPPT20250120, UPC CoA, Amazon v Nokia - I
A confidentiality order encompasses appeal proceedings, unless the order provides otherwise (R. 262A RoP)
IPPT20250116, UPC CoA, Fives v REEL
The Court’s competence (or jurisdiction) includes a separate action for determination of damages after a national court - before entry into force of the UPCA - has established the existence of an infringement of a European patent and an obligation in principle for the infringer to pay damages (Article 32(1) UPCA). The wording of Art. 32(1)(a) UPCA is inconclusive; […], while […] the rationale behind Art. 32(1)(f) UPCA speaks in favour of jurisdiction of the UPC for separate damages actions, when the infringement has been established by a national court. The Brussels Regulation is not relevant to the question of interpretation of Art. 32(1)(a) UPCA. Art. 71b Brussels Ia Regulation only regulates the international jurisdiction of the UPC in relation to the courts of non-contracting Member States. Through Art. 68 UPCA, the UPC has its own damages provisions. If an action is lodged with the UPC, within its jurisdiction and encompassing a damages request, there is by consequence a complete set of substantive rules applicable insofar as the European patents of the CMSs are concerned. They are subject to uniform substantive law and procedural rules. The Rules provide for adjudication in – at the very least – one type of scenario, where the existence of an infringement will not have to be assessed in law and in fact by the Court. There does not seem to be a reason to treat the situation in the present case differently.
IPPT20250116, UPC CoA, Bhagat v Oerlikon
No suspensive effect of appeal justified (R. 223 RoP, R. 25 RoP) by (i) a judgement to be expected ‘very soon’ in parallel proceedings, to which Bhagat is not a (intervening) party, and (ii) an unsubstantiated statement that there are “considerable doubts” as to the validity of the patent while no counterclaim for revocation has been filed in the first instance
IPPT20250115, UPC CoA, Avago v Tesla
Withdrawal of appeal by party agreement (R. 265 RoP). The court of appeal has jurisdiction to decide on the admission of the applications to withdraw. Court of appeal has the authority, in the event of the admission of the withdrawal, to declare the proceedings terminated in accordance with R. 265.2(a) RoP and to make a decision on costs. No need for cost decision as both parties waive a decision on costs and the application for a cost decision before the Hamburg Local Division has been withdrawn. The withdrawal of the revocation counterclaim has the effect that the requests for amendment of the patent become irrelevant. Against this background, there was no need for a separate authorisation of the withdrawal of the requests for amendment of the patent.
IPPT20250114, UPC CoA, Total Semiconductors v Texas Instruments
Justified to allow discretionary review in appeal of orders of the judge-rapporteur (absent panel review) (R. 220.3 RoP, R. 333 RoP). The question whether the judge-rapporteur could decide alone on security for costs of a party and deny leave to appeal is an access to justice issue which the Court of Appeal can raise of its own motion. Possible for judge-rapporteur or the presiding judge to order security for costs. R. 158 RoP does not exclusively reserve orders on security for costs for a panel of the Court. This flexibility allows the judges to organise the proceedings in the most efficient and cost effective manner. Order on security for costs (R. 158 RoP) must be considered a case management order, making it subject to review by the panel (R. 333.1 RoP). System implies a broad interpretation of “case management decision or order”. Judge-rapporteur not competent to decide on leave to appeal in his order on security for cost (R. 158 RoP, R. 220.2 RoP, R. 333.1 RoP). Would circumvent the system with panel review. It is therefore only the panel, after panel review, that can decide on leave to appeal.
IPPT20250113, UPC CoA, Magna v Valeo
Withdrawal of action upon application by Valeo (holder of preliminary injunction) with the consent of the appellant (Magna) (R. 265 RoP). In view of Magna’s consent, Magna cannot be considered to have a legitimate interest in the action being decided by the Court. No need for a decision on costs: parties have agreed that neither party shall file an application for reimbursement of costs versus the other party.
IPPT20250109, UPC CoA, Insulet v Menarini
Automatic extension of a time period until the end of the first following working day if documents filed in electronic form cannot be received by the Court (R. 301.2 RoP). Since the Court of Appeal could not receive the Statement of response via CMS there was an automatic extension of the deadline until the end of the day following the day on which the upload was possible. The upload was possible on 30 December 2024. Therefore the time period was extended until the next following working day.
IPPT20250109, UPC CoA, Dish v AYLO
Partial refund (60%) of court fees in the event of withdrawal of the appeal before the conclusion of the written proceedings. An application for reimbursement of court fees is only provided for in the cases listed in Rules 370.9 and 370.10 RoP. Just as R. 265 RoP applies by analogy in the event of the withdrawal of the appeal (…), R. 370.9(b)(i) RoP applies mutatis mutandis in the event of the withdrawal of the appeal. The Rules of Procedure do not provide for the possibility of a further refund in the event of the withdrawal of the appeal.
IPPT20250109, UPC CoA, Abbott v Powell
Appeal dismissed, rightly granted access (Article 45 UPCA, R. 262 RoP). A ‘reasoned request` in R.262.1(b)RoP means a request that not only states which written pleadings and evidence (…) the applicant wishes to obtain, but also specifies the purpose of the request and explains why the access to the specified documents is necessary for that purpose, thus providing all the information that is necessary for the judge-rapporteur to make the required balance of interests. Once the CFI has concluded the proceedings, there is generally no reason to protect the integrity of the CFI proceedings, regardless of whether the CFI decision or order deals with all the arguments and evidence in the case or not; irrespective of whether the rendered order concerns provisional measures of the information or evidence ia also subject to other proceedings.
IPPT20250109, UPC CoA, EOFlow v Insulet
No need to adjudicate appeal by EOFlow from a denied joinder of provisional measures request after the Milan Local Division and the Milan Central Division issued their final decision rejecting Insulet´s applications for provisional measures (R. 360 RoP). R. 360 RoP aplies not only when the action itself has become devoid of purpose, but also when the appeal has become devoid of purpose. If the appellant has no legal interest in bringing appeal proceedings anymore, there is no reason to adjudicate on it. This means the appeal has become devoid of purpose. To have a legal interest in bringing appeal proceedings the appeal must be likely, if successful, to procure an advantage for that party.
IPPT20250108, UPC CoA, Daedalus v Xiaomi
Intervention by Mediatek in appeal proceedings between Daedalus and Xiaomi allowed (R. 313 RoP, R, 314 RoP). MediaTek has a direct and present interest in the result of the appeal proceedings, as the confidential information at issue in the appeal proceedings concerns information relating to the architecture of MediaTek’s processors. Daedalus’ submission that its US attorneys already have access to the confidential information in the context of parallel proceedings in the US does not alter the assessment. This submission may be relevant to the decision on the appeal but does not mean that there is no legal interest for MediaTek to intervene in the appeal proceedings. Application to intervene admissible, although not made before the closure of the written procedure (R. 313.2 RoP, R. 315 RoP). MediaTek declared that it does not intend to file a statement of intervention under R. 315.1 and R. 315.3 and wishes only to be allowed to participate in the oral hearing to support Xiaomi in their request to dismiss the appeal. Allowing the intervention will therefore not result in any delay of the appeal proceedings.
