UPC Court of First Instance - 2025 - 2nd Quarter

IPPT20250630, UPC CFI, LD Paris, HP v Nokia
Unlimited access granted with leave to appeal and suspensive effect until the expiration of the deadline for filing an appeal or, if an appeal is filed, until the end of such proceedings (R. 262.2(b) RoP, R. 220.2 RoP). Court can on its own motion impose certain conditions on granting access for the purpose of appropriate protection of the integrity of proceedings, since this is a matter of the general interest. No access granted to Exhibits containing a Statement of Claim in an action before the Local Division Munich and a translation of it, on which it is stated that it contains confidential information. A request can be submitted at the Local Division Munich.

IPPT20250630, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Roche v Tandem
No refund of court fees following settlement after the conclusion of the oral proceedings (R. 370.9(c) RoP) It follows from R. 111(b) RoP, according to which the presiding judge must ensure that the proceedings are ready for decision at the end of the oral hearing, that the oral proceedings are also concluded when the oral hearing ends (UPC_CoA_520/2024, order of 18 April 2025, para. 15 – Scandit v. Hand Held)
 

IPPT20250627, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Centripal v Palo Alto
The time period for Defendant’s rejoinder in the infringement proceedings, its reply to the defence to the counterclaim for revocation and its defence against the application to amend the patent is extended with two weeks extended until 14 July 2025 (R. 29 RoP) due to unforeseen international flight restrictions due to events of the last two weeks regarding Israel

IPPT20250627, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Sanofi v Accord
Panel confirmation of judge rapporteur’s case management order of 8 May 2025 (ORD_10069/2025) regarding the management of the subsequent proceedings is confirmed under the condition that the typo in item 4 of the order is corrected to “Rule 29(e) of the Rules of Procedure” (R. 332 RoP, R. 333 RoP)

IPPT20250627, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Irdeto v DJI
Extension of time period for Statement of defence  justified in order to establish a uniform time period regime, given that the dates of service vary for the Defendants 2 to 4, which are represented uniformly and which in the case of Defendants 2 and 3 belong to the same group if companies.(Rule 9.3 RoP, R. 23 RoP).

IPPT20250627, UPC CFI, CD Munich, Baussmann v Raimund Beck Nageltechnik
Invitation to interim hearing (R. 101.1 RoP)

IPPT20250626, UPC CFI, LD Hamburg, Visibly v Easee
If a party is declared insolvent the parties’ representatives are still able to file the stay application under Rule 311.1 RoP. This corresponds with the concept of the RoP that the insolvency of a party does not lead to an automatic stay of proceedings, thus upholding the legal ability of the assigned representative to act before the UPC on behalf of the party. In fact, it is the acting representatives’ obligation to notify the Court of the insolvency. The proceedings are stayed in their entirety, including the proceedings against the company director. A stay according to R. 311 RoP is generally a stay of the proceedings as a whole. Due to the stay of the proceedings the three Defendants are no longer obliged to provide the ordered security (R. 335 RoP).

IPPT20250623, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Aesculap v Shanghai International
Information in preparation for oral hearing (R. 105.5 RoP, R. 9.1 RoP). 

IPPT20250620, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Headwater v Motorola
Preliminary objections rejected (R. 19 RoP, R. 20 RoP). Objections of defendants 1) and 2) were lodged one day after the expiry of the one month objection period (R. 300(c) RoP). Deemed day of service of Rule 271.6(b) RoP does only apply to service of a Statement of claim in a Contracting State but not in the USA. The actual date of service must be taken into account, for which the CMS is not decisive, but rather the certificate of service or other proof of service. Objections of defendants 1) to 3) rejected. Competence over multiple defendants having a commercial relationship and the same alleged infringement, even though the contributions of each defendant is not identical (Article 33(1)(b) UPCA). Objections of defendant 5) rejected (Article 33(1)(b) UPCA). The existence of a business relationship as such with companies belonging to the Motorola Group is not disputed, nor the existence of a commercial activity with the same purpose, namely the promotion of manufacturing through production management agreements. An indirect business relationship with other companies in the Motorola Group to which the third defendant also belongs and with which it maintains business relationships, is sufficient. Also competence on the basis of Article 33(1)(a) UPCA, although not stated in the Statement of claim. Plaintiff's reference thereto in its response to the opposition must be taken into account. (R. 13 RoP, R. 263 RoP). Even if the plaintiff had not invoked Article 33(1)(a) UPCA in the dispute, the court would have been free  to base the jurisdiction of the Local Chamber on this provision. Fifth defendant is also allegedly an intermediary by enabling and promoting the infringing acts of the other defendants as a logistics service provider (Article 63(1) UPCA).
 

IPPT20250620, UPC CFI, LD Milan, Ericsson v Asustek
Panel review dismissed of confidentiality club order rejecting external eyes only (R. 262A RoP). On the specific issue of potential antitrust violation, Ericsson limited itself in a general way to arguing that there is a risky situation related to the disclosure of the financial aspects of the information, in particular because Ericsson’s licensees may be in direct competition with Asustek. Admissible application for panel review of confidentiality club order (R. 262A RoP, R. 333.1 RoP). An order under rule 262A RoP influences the conduct of the proceedings and is thus an order directing the proceedings according to rule 333.1 RoP. 
 

IPPT20250620, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, ZTE v Samsung
Value in dispute for FRAND counterclaim increased up from € 4 million (R. 370 RoP)

IPPT20250619, UPC CFI, LD Paris, NJ Diffusion v Gisela Mayer
Voluntary intervention by receiver in insolvency of NJ Diffusion allowed (R. 313 RoP). The consequences of this voluntary intervention will be decided in the substantive decision to be made. Request for security for costs inadmissible (R. 158 RoP). The panel notes, on the one hand, that this judicial guarantee provided for in R. 158 RdP does not condition the continuation of the action before the JUB, since only the involvement of the collective proceedings bodies and the declaration of claims in the proceedings constitute the sine qua non conditions for the resumption of the ongoing action, and on the other hand,  that the granting of this judicial guarantee to one of the creditors of the debtor in receivership would be contrary to the principle of equality of creditors that governs collective proceedings under French law.

IPPT20250618, UPC CFI, President, Interdigital v Disney
Language of the proceedings changed to the language in which the patent was granted, namely English (Article 49(5) UPCA and R. 323 RoP).

IPPT20250617, UPC CFI, LD Milan, PMA v AWM
Order following interim conference (R. 105.5 RoP). Admissibility of the application for a new amendment of the patent (new version of AR4) pursuant to rule 30.2 RoP, as submitted by Progress in its rejoinder to the reply and reply to defence to the application to amend the patent dated 20.3.2025 referred to the panel (R. 263 RoP, R. 102 RoP)

IPPT20250616, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Esko v XSYS
Proceedings stayed at party request to allow fruitful settlement negotiations which are pending between the parties without the pressure of ongoing proceedings before the UPC (R. 295.d RoP)

IPPT2025016, UPC CFI, LD Hamburg, Steros v Otec
PI granted (Article 25 UPCA, Article 62(1) UPCA, R. 211.1(a) RoP). Standing to sue exclusive licensee (Article 47(2) UPCA). Given the Applicant's aim of obtaining unrestricted freedom to operate, there can be no reasonable doubt that patents registered after the agreement was concluded are also to be licensed. Insofar as the Defendant raises doubts about the incorporation of future property rights, these appear to be unfounded. The patent proprietor, which belongs to the same group of companies as the Applicant, is aware of the present proceedings. It can be assumed that the patent proprietor would have raised objections to the Applicant's present application if the Applicant had not been entitled to assert it before this Court. This should make it clear that the Applicant is also licensed to use the patent in suit. Sufficient degree of certainty regarding the validity of the patent in suit (Article 65 UPCA, R. 209 RoP) lacks if the Court considers it on the balance of probabilities to be more likely than not that the patent is invalid. The burden of presentation and proof for facts concerning the lack of validity of the patent in suit lies with the defendant. It should be noted that the assessment of these probabilities is based on an examination of how the Court – consisting of a panel including a technical qualified judge – would probably decide about the revocation of the patent in the event of a counterclaim on the merits. Decisions of other European Courts or decisions of the EPO concerning the same patent do not bind the Court but may provide helpful indications that the Court may take into account. Defendant was unable to demonstrate that feature group 1.1 was directly and unambiguously disclosed by the public prior use (Article 54 EPC). It can be noted that the attacked embodiment and the alleged prior use differ in their composition, so that no conclusion can be drawn regarding the measurements of the attacked embodiment with regard to the public prior use. Claim interpretation – skilled person (Article 69 EPC): the skilled person is taking the purpose of every patent claim into account, to provide the average person skilled in the art with a technical teaching which, when reworked, leads to the intended success of the invention. Weighing of interests (Article 62(2) UPCA). Above all, the balance of interests must take into account the probability of an erroneous decision and also the objective urgency in terms of the necessity of provisional measures with regard to equally possible proceedings on the merits. All aspects are to be weighed against each other in relation to each other. The Defendant sells a new machine, which can be used in a new environment and therefore in a new market and that can be operated with the attacked embodiment, the Applicant will suffer a lasting loss of market share of its electrolyte media, resulting in lower sales. The patent infringement, therefore, leads to subsequent business transactions for the Defendant, which are at the same time missed opportunities for the Applicant. [...] price erosion to the disadvantage of the Applicant occurs. No provision of security for enforcement (Article 82(2) UPCA, R. 211.5 RoP). absent reasons given by the defendant nor a provision of how damages would be calculated. The undue burden can for example be related to the financial position of the applicant, or to the foreign law applicable in the territory where the order for compensation shall be enforced, including the application of that foreign law. The Defendant applied in the objection for a security of enforcement. Apart from reproducing the wording of R. 211.5 RoP, no grounds were given for such an order. Decision on costs (Article 69 UPCA). The Court is of the opinion, like the Court of Appeal […], that a cost decision should be issued in inter partes proceedings for provisional measures, since it concludes the action.

IPPT20250616, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, 10x Genomics v Curio Bioscience
Direct patent infringement (Article 25 UPCA); Injunction for Germany, France and Sweden, recall, destruction, providing information, to compensate for damages. Mere use of subclaims as additional arguments at the oral hearing to support a previous position taken by Claimant is not considered late (R. 263 RoP, Article 69 EPC). As claim construction is a matter of law and the Court must independently construe the claims, and as the construction of feature 1.6. was in dispute between the parties anyway. Claim interpretation: embodiments and subclaims as examples of the invention (Article 69 EPC). If several embodiments are presented in the description as being in accordance with the invention, the terms used in the claim are to be understood, in case of doubt, as meaning that all embodiments can be used to fulfil them. The same applies for subclaims, which do not normally narrow the scope of the main claim. They merely demonstrate possibilities for its design, which may offer an additional advantage. Claim interpretation: a statement of purpose in the claim (Article 69 EPC) usually serve to improve understanding of the invention and as a rule have the indirect effect of defining the subject matter protected by the patent in such a way that it must not only fulfil the spatial-physical features, but must also be designed to be usable for the purpose stated in the claim. Extent of protection – burden of proof of non-infringement (Article 69 EPC, R. 171 RoP). It is for the Defendant to work out in each case in relation to the individual features of the claim, how specifically the technical design of the challenged embodiment differs in each case from the description in the article and to explain why this is relevant for the question of infringement. Rebuttable presumption of infringement (Article 25 UPCA). By offering and placing the challenged embodiment on the market, the Defendant gives rise to a rebuttable presumption that it also uses it or imports or possesses it for the purposes of offering, placing on the market, or using it. Extent of protection – enabling disclosure (Article 69 EPC, Article 83 EPC). Even if the claim does not specify the more detailed technical design of the surface structure of the array at the time of release, the presence of an array in the aforementioned sense, from the surface of which the release takes place, remains necessary. Enforcement not subject to security (Article 82(2) UPCA, R. 118.8 RoP). It is for the Defendant to submit facts and arguments as to why it is appropriate in the particular case to make the order or measure pursuant to R. 118.8 RoP subject to a security to be determined by the Court.

IPPT20250616, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Esko v XSYS
Proceedings stayed at party request to allow fruitful settlement negotiations which are pending between the parties without the pressure of ongoing proceedings before the UPC (R. 295.d RoP)

IPPT20250615, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Headwater v Samsung
Security for costs dismissed (R. 158 RoP). It is sufficient for a defendant to establish that enforcement of a cost order is unduly burdensome. The burden of showing this is on the applicant of an order for security for costs. To this end, the applicant shall not only provide evidence as to the foreign law applicable in the territory where the order shall be enforced, but also its application. Furthermore, the Court notes that, according to the UPC case law, US courts routinely recognise and enforce judgments of foreign courts. Furthermore, the Defendants have failed to submit any substantiating facts indicating a tangible risk of insolvency. In particular being an NPE as such is not sufficient to give rise to a risk of insolvency of the Claimant.

IPPT20250613, UPC CFI, CD Munich, TCL v Corning
Having heard the parties in relation to applications 23661/2025 and 25818/2025, the Court: (i) Admits the pleadings submitted with application 23661/2025 including the new added matter arguments and the Swedish Consulting Report into these [Revocation] proceedings (R. 263 RoP); (ii) Extends the deadline for filing the Defence to Revocation including an Application to amend the patent by two weeks (R. 49 RoP)

IPPT20250612, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Katun v Canon
No bifurcation with party consent (Article 33(3) UPCA, R. 37 RoP)

IPPT20250612, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, Genevant v Moderna
Claimants are given the opportunity to respond within one week (R. 19 RoP) to ‘application to review a case management order’  (R. 333 RoP), regarding preliminary objections filed by Defendants by the entire panel (Rule 333.1 RoP). In the alternative to allow the appeal against the decision of the panel on the preliminary objections.  

IPPT20250610, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Aesculap v Shanghai International
Respondent permitted to engage an interpreter at her own expense (R. 109 RoP). Application to allow respondent’s legal representative to participate in the oral hearing by video conference rejected (R. 112(3) RoP): no reasons given why it is seeking such permission. 

IPPT20250609, UPC CFI, CD Paris, NJOY v Juul
Applicant granted access (R. 262 RoP) to the written pleadings and evidence lodged by the parties in the [first instance] Revocation action, subject to the redaction of personal data. The integrity of any appeal proceedings – as currently pending – cannot be considered to be a reason to impose conditions on access to pleadings and evidence submitted in the first instance proceedings.

IPPT20250606, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Sunstar v Ceracon - I
Application for leave to amend the counterclaim for revocation dismissed (R. 263 RoP). A claimant in a counterclaim for revocation is not free, or at least privileged, to amend its case compared to a claimant in an infringement action. Rather, R. 263 RoP applies in full to a counterclaim for revocation. In any case, granting leave to amend the counterclaim for revocation if a simple search could have revealed a document from the prior art which the claimant of the counterclaim for revocation itself considers highly relevant would amount to allowing practically any document found later and the attack on validity based thereon.

IPPT20250606, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Sunstar v Ceracon - II
Clarifying amendment to the wording of Request IV in the Statement of claims is admissible without the need of an application pursuant to R. 263 RoP and, if necessary, permitted. Obvious oversights cannot automatically be regarded as grounds for exclusion under R. 263.2(a) RoP in accordance with the purpose of R. 263 RoP to protect the front-loaded proceedings. When assessing whether to grant leave for the amendment of the claim, the court has to balance the conflicting interests of the parties concerned, thereby taking all circumstances of the individual case into account.
 

IPPT20250606, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Tiroler Rohre v SSAB
Patent partially invalid (Article 65 UPCA) and infringed (Article 25 UPCA). Inventive step (Article 56 EPC): Problem-solution-approach: to increase legal certainty and further align the case law of the Unified Patent Court with the case law of the EPO and its Boards of Appeal, the problem-solution approach (PSA) developed by the European Patent Office (EPO) should be applied as far as possible. Extent of protection (Article 69 EPC); infringement (Article 25 UPCA); Injunction (Article 63 UPCA): If a device has the required suitability, it is irrelevant whether the characteristics and effects specified in the patent are achieved regularly, only in exceptional cases or only by chance, and whether the user intends to achieve these effects. It is sufficient that the groove base present in the contested embodiments is potentially suitable for receiving the front end of a pile end. In the court's view, this is the case because the groove of the contested embodiments, which tapers towards the groove base and is shown below, does not prevent a pile with a wall thickness corresponding to the groove base or a tapered pile from reaching the groove base. An injunction relating to the contested embodiments could not be imposed if, taking into account all relevant parameters such as shape (cone), material, wall thickness of the pile, soil conditions and pile driving force, it is technically impossible to manufacture a pile whose front end can reach the bottom of the groove of the contested pile tips when they are attached or driven in. In this case, the claim's requirement of attachability and thus the realisation of all features of the patent claim would have to be denied, even though this is a circumstance outside the scope of the patent claim. Burden of proof regarding infringement (Article 25 UPCA, Article 54 UPCA). The plaintiff must demonstrate and prove that all the features of the patent in suit are realised by the contested embodiments (ramming tips), since it alleges infringement and thus the realisation of all the features of the patent in suit by the contested embodiments. If the defendants claim that patent infringement is impossible due to circumstances outside the scope of the patent claim, the defendants bear the burden of proof for this claim . Territorial scope of decision (Article 34 UPCA). Defendants’ position that the geographical scope of the prohibition should be limited to Germany, Austria and Italy, since the contested embodiments were only offered there, is incorrect on the basis of Article 34 EPC. In the case of a European patent, the decisions of the court apply to the territory of those contracting member states for which the European patent is effective. Publication of the decision (Article 15 Enforcement Directive). The court does not agree with the defendants' view that there is no legitimate interest in publishing the judgment because EPG decisions are published anyway. If this were the case, any application for publication of the judgment would always have to be rejected.

IPPT20250606, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Dish v Aylo
Patent infringement claim dismissed (Article 25 UPCA), partial revocation (Article 65 UPCA). No abuse of right during the transitional period by also filing a patent infringement before the national regional court at Munich regarding the same acts and a patent belonging to the same patent family (Article 83 UPCA). Amendments to corrective measures of the Statement of claim are not objectionable as such (R. 263 RoP, R. 30 RoP). The application for a declaratory judgment made in the oral hearing is not admissible as an extension of the action, R. 263.1, .2 (a) RoP. According to the system of the EPGÜ, the determination of patent infringement (Art. 64 (2) (a) UPCA) is one of the remedies under Art. 64 UPCA, which are particularly available in addition to the claim for injunctive relief (Art. 63 UPCA). It is independent of the existence of a claim for injunctive relief. Doctrine of equivalence (Article 2 Interpretation Protocol). there is no equivalent patent infringement if there is no technical and functional equivalence of the substitute product in the sense that the modified products do not essentially fulfil the same function in order to achieve essentially the same effect. Insofar as the same function is not taken as a basis, at least essentially the same effect is taken as a basis. Revocation of dependent subclaims (Article 65 UPCA). There is generally no legal interest in the isolated removal of dependent subclaims by means of an action for annulment (or counterclaim) without removing the independent claim to which they refer. The subject matter of the patent in suit is not extended by these subclaims as such. Appropriate number of auxiliary request depends on the circumstances of the case and the number of attacks on the patent in suit may also be taken into account (R. 30.1 c) RoP) 

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.

IPPT20250605, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Phoenix v ILME
Withdrawal of infringement claim and counterclaim for revocation (R. 265 RoP). Each party bearing its own costs

IPPT20250605, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Fingon v Samsung
Case management (R. 334 RoP. R. 9 RoP). The decision on the request to exclude the impugned submissions from consideration is postponed until after the oral hearing, and thus transferred to the panel. There is no amendment to the case. Not every new argument constitutes an “amendment of a case” requiring a party to apply for leave under R. 263 RoP. Defendants’ request to extend the time period pursuant to R. 29 (d) RoP is dismissed.

IPPT20250605, UPC CFI, CD Milan, Eoflow v Insulet
Confidentiality club as to information regarding attorney’s fees and expenses incurred. (Article 58 UPCA, R. 262A RoP). Protection cannot be recognized from the point of view of protecting the law firm about the disclosure of the costs it applies to patent litigation, but only from the point of view of the company, which is the sole beneficiary of the protection governed by Rule 262A RoP but not under the principle of attorney-client privilege. In fact, rule 262A refers to information ‘contained in its pleadings’ and evidence thereof and, therefore, to information identifiable as company secrets in the sense previously referred to. INSULET’s request to limit confidentiality to law firms’ representatives only is dismissed

IPPT20250604, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, 10x Genomics v Curio Bioscience
Change of confidentiality club members (R. 262A RoP) to provide access rights to two paralegals to ensure proper file management. Limited request by the Applicant alone does not provide grounds to question the access rights of paralegals

IPPT20250604, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, Genevant v Moderna
Rectification of date of service in PO Order and assumed late filing of Preliminary objections (R. 353 RoP,,R. 19 RoP).. The applications are founded. The dates of service mentioned for Moderna Germany, Belgium and Poland in the PO Order are incorrect and constitute clerical mistakes, errors in calculation and/or obvious slips in the order which can be rectified pursuant to R.353 RoP.

IPPT2025040603, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Edwards v Meril
Two identical applications for rectification because of CMS questions when filing a request for rectification (R. 353 RoP). The applications are founded with regard to items 1, 2, 3, 7 and 8. Edwards did not object to these requests.

IPPT20250603, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Swarco v Yunex
Intervention by Shenzen Dianming granted (R. 314 RoP). The other parties have not raised any objections

IPPT20250603, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Fujifilm v Kodak

Request to issue a penalty warning rejected (Article 82(4) UPCA, R. 354 RoP). The panel explicitly decided in the main decision that no fixed time period for the provision of the information is set and that no amount of penalty is set up-front. All related points will have to be addressed in the course of an application to impose penalties.

IPPT20250603, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Centripetal Limited v Palo Alto Networks
Ex parte order to preserve evidence and inspect premises after case is referred back by Court of Appeal (Article 60 UPCA, R. 192 RoP, R. 243 RoP). After referral back by the CoA, the court is bound by the order of the CoA (R. 243.2 RoP) as far as the CoA ruled on the addressed issues and orders as follows accordingly hereinafter. It is referred to the reasoning of the CoA’s order. As the CoA did not decide on the question whether or not the execution of the order - [...] - may only take place after defendant was informed [...], the CFI had discretion to decide under R. 196.3 RoP, whether immediate enforcement nonetheless is proportionate on the instant facts or whether the enforceability has to be put under further conditions. Justified to allow the defendant a limited time of two hours to be able to reach out to a lawyer of his choice to attend the setting up and monitoring as described hereinafter
 

IPPT20250602, UPC CFI, LD Milan, Dainese v Alpinestars 
Proceedings concerning EP 117 stayed until either party notifies the Court of the final decision issued by the Opposition Division of the EPO (Article 43 UPCA, R. 295.d RoP). According to the doctrine, where all parties request the stay of proceedings, the Court must order the stay. despite the use of the word ‘may’ at the beginning of the Rule, it has no discretion. A stay of the counterclaim proceedings and of the applications to amend the patent EP '117 is a more efficient management of the proceedings and avoid unnecessary activities by the parties and the Court.

IPPT20250602, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Hurom v NUC
Confidentiality club application dismissed (R. 262A RoP) for information to be communicated  pursuant to a court order (Article 67 UPCA). R. 262A RoP applies only to information contained in the pleadings of the parties to the proceedings. Restrictions inherent to the order to provide information on the use of the information: The information, which Defendants have been ordered to provide, may only be used to identify third infringers, to determine and calculate damages and to verify information obtained from the Defendants in this regard (cf. decision on the merits, para. 121). In particular, Claimant is not allowed to use the information in order to gain a competitive advantage. Moreover, any unauthorised or improper use may in addition constitute a breach of business secrecy within the meaning of Directive (EU) 2016/943 (“Trade Secrets Directive”)

IPPT20250602, UPC CFI, LD Milan, Dainese v Alpinestars 
Proceedings concerning EP 117 stayed until either party notifies the Court of the final decision issued by the Opposition Division of the EPO (Article 43 UPCA, R. 295 RoP). According to the doctrine, where all parties request the stay of proceedings, the Court must order the stay. despite the use of the word ‘may’ at the beginning of the Rule, it has no discretion. A stay of the counterclaim proceedings and of the applications to amend the patent EP '117 is a more efficient management of the proceedings and avoid unnecessary activities by the parties and the Court.
 

IPPT20250602, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Hereaeus v Vibrantz
Order following interim conference (R. 105.5 RoP)

IPPT20250602, UPC CFI, LD Hamburg, Lionra v Cisco
If a time limit provided for in the Rules of Procedure or set by the court has been missed, the party has no option but to apply for re-establishment of the previous status, provided that it is not time limits that cannot be extended (R. 9.3 RoP, R. 320 RoP). The standard of care must be interpreted autonomously (R. 320.1 RoP). The required care (“all due care”/”Sorgfalt”/ “toute la viglance nécessaire“) is generally deemed to have been exercised if the party has taken all reasonable precautions to enable it to comply with the time limit. This includes, among other things, the implementation of team functions and rules on representation. The requirements for the standard of care are further specified by the fact that compliance with the required care is equivalent to the party ultimately missing the deadline for a reason beyond its control ("outside his control"/"hors de son contrôle"). In accordance with these principles, the application for reinstatement had to be granted. The plaintiff has credibly demonstrated that it has implemented a system for monitoring and controlling deadlines that is adequate in terms of content, based on the dual control principle and monitored by the legal representative, at least on a random basis. It has credibly demonstrated that that despite the dual control principle the failure to record the deadline for submitting cost claims was inadvertently not noted. The plaintiff's legal representative cannot be accused of a lack of supervision, instruction or selection of the employees. In this respect, a further distinction must be made between the requirements for compliance with and monitoring of non-extendable deadlines and those for compliance with and monitoring of deadlines that are extendable in principle. The standard of care for non-extendable deadlines [...] os higher because failure to meet them immediately threatens a loss of rights. In contrast, the time limit at issue in the present case for initiating proceedings for a decision on costs is already extendable in principle.

IPPT20250602, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Biomarin v Ascendis
No bifurcation (Article 33(3) UPCA). Panel supports the judge rapporteur's decision to set the date of the interim conference for 9 January 2026 (R. 28 RoP). BioMarin can decide for itself when and for how long to take a holiday
 

IPPT20250602, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Versah v HaeNaem
Withdrawal of action against second defendant by party consent (R. 265 RoP)

IPPT20250602, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Roche v Tandem
Confirmation of settlement regarding defendants 1 and 2 (only)  (R. 365 RoP).

IPPT20250530, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Sunstar v Ceracon
Claimant has validly chosen English as the language of the proceedings (Article 49(2) UPCA). By filing its statement of claim in English and designating English as the language of the proceedings pursuant to Art. 49 (2) UPCA in its statement of claim, under the section on formalities, Claimant has chosen English as the language of the proceedings. The choice is valid. English is the language of the patent-in-suit.

IPPT20250530, UPC CFI, LD Hamburg, Visibly v Easee
Defendants to provide security for the Claimant’s legal costs in the (total) amount of € 75.000 regarding the counterclaim for revocation (Article  69(4) UPCA, R. 158 RoP). Article 69(4) UPCA does not provide for an obligation on the part of the Defendant to provide security.  A Claimant can request a Defendant to provide security for costs to the extent that it concerns the counterclaim for revocation as a Defendant acting as Counterclaimant falls within the scope of Art. 69(4) UPCA

IPPT20250530, UPC CFI, LD Brussels, Genentech v Organon
Ex parte order to preserve evidence (R. 192 RoP) and order for inspection (R. 199 RoP) (Article 60 UPCA), appointment of independent experts, subject to confidentiality circle, time limits procedure on the merits, € 25.000 security and limited use of the outcome of the measures. Jurisdiction and territorial competence UPC (Article 31 UPCA, Article 32 UPCA). No jurisdiction and territorial competence for order to preserve evidence and inspect premises regarding Organon US and Henlius, which have their registered office and premises outside the competent territory of the UPC. Jurisdiction and territorial competence for order to preserve evidence and inspect premises regarding Organon BE, which has its registered office in Belgium and the actual and threatened infringement has occurred or may occur in Belgium with respect to EP 335. The order to preserve evidence and inspect premises  allows the execution at the premises of ORGANON NL and ORGANON BE regardless of whether third parties own any material (including servers) to be found at their premises. Standard of proof: "a certain degree of plausibility of the infringement or the threat thereof" [...]. he same certain degree should be considered when assessing the validity of the patent. This “certain degree” is practically translated by the Court as making it “highly likely”. As such, the standard of proof for Applicants is lower compared to infringement actions (on the merits) and preliminary measures actions. Applicants should not already prove infringement, as this would render the order for preservation of evidence/access meaningless. € 25.000 security for combined order to preserve evidence and inspect premises (Article 60(7) UPCA, R. 196 RoP). Although Art. 60(7) UPCA does not seem to allow the court to make the execution of an order for inspection conditional on a security (see § 30), the Applicants' requests are of such a nature that they combine an order to preserve evidence and an order for inspection. 
 

IPPT20250529, UPC CFI, CD Paris, Lindal v Rocep-Lusol
Revocation action dismissed; patent maintained as amended by the First Auxiliary request (Article 65 UPCA). Industrial applicability (Article 57 EPC) and insufficient disclosure (Article 83 EPC)(Article 138(1(a)(b) EPC). If an (alleged) invention would not comply with the generally accepted laws of physics falls within its scope because it cannot be used and therefore lacks industrial application. In such a situation, also the description would be insufficient to the extent that the applicant would not be able to describe how it could be made to work. claim 5 does not meet the criteria for industrial applicability under Articles 57 and 138 (1) (a) ‘EPC’ and must be considered as invalid. Since the application is addressed to the skilled person, it is neither necessary nor desirable to give details of well-known ancillary features. However, the description must disclose any feature essential for carrying out the invention in sufficient detail to make it apparent to the skilled person how to put the invention into practice without undue burden. (Article 83 EPC). Application to amend the patent (R. 30 RoP). Auxiliary requests must be addressed in the order indicated by the defendant, in the absence of specific elements and/or requests suggesting otherwise. Novelty – clearly integrally, directly and unambiguously disclosed (Article 54 EPC). An invention is to be considered part of the state of the art when it is found clearly integrally, directly and unambiguously in one single piece of prior art and it is identical in its constitutive elements, in the same form, with the same arrangement and the same features. While drawings must always be used as explanatory aids for the interpretation of a patent claim, they cannot be used to extract a characteristic when definitively and unambiguously contradicted by the description and not supported by the claim. Inventive step – non-obvious synergistic effect (Article 56 EPC). The combination of the use of only a compressed gas propellant with the clearance provided between the second piston and the container wall determines a synergistic effect of creating a sealant film on the container wall which reduces friction while maintaining a seal and mitigates the rapid pressure drop of the compressed gas during the expansion of the propellant chamber. This is not disclosed or rendered obvious by the claimant’s cited prior art documents.

IPPT20250528, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Nanoval v ALD Vacuum Technologies
Review of ex parte order to preserve evidence and inspection of 3 February 2025 unsuccessful (R. 197.3 RoP). Sufficient likelihood of infringement: The court currently has no evidence that a Laval nozzle does not allow grain sizes above 50 um. Nor does the respondent explicitly claim this. This circumstance, together with other circumstances mentioned in the order, was sufficient for the court to find that there was a sufficient likelihood of infringement. Unclarity protective letters (R. 207 RoP). Insofar as the respondent argues that the protective letters submitted by the respondent reveal the different nozzle shape of the EIGA Premium system, it is the respondent's failure to clearly state in any of the protective letters submitted which system or systems are referred to in these protective letters. It is not the task of the court to remedy this deficiency by comparing the respondent's submissions in the opposition proceedings by way of an overall interpretation of all the pleadings submitted in various proceedings and to interpret on this basis what the respondent might have meant. Legally incorrect assumption that an order under Article 60 UPCA must be set aside because the risk of destruction of evidence has not been sufficiently proven. Review under R. 197.3 RoP is limited to the question whether the measures were rightly order; in this context, the possible destruction of evidence is irrelevant.
 

IPPT20250528, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Samsung v ZTE
Value of infringement action set at € 4 million on a preliminary basis (instead of € 500.000) (R. 22.1 RoP, R. 370.6 RoP). The value of the dispute is largely underestimated taking into consideration the commercial background of the infringement action attacking all standard-essential 5G mobile devices of the opponent and the general FRAND rate discussion between the parties on which the injunctive relief sought will have economic bearing

IPPT20250528, UPC CFI, CD Paris, Aylo Premium v Dish Technologies 
German part (only) of European patent revoked (Article 65 UPCA). The Unified Patent Court can revoke European patents for one or more individual UPC Member States if so requested (Article 34 UPCA, Article 76 UPCA). No stay until Opposition Division has decided (Article 33(10) UPCA, R. 295 RoP). Claimant's interest in obtaining a timely judgment and the interest in conducting proceedings which can be terminated in approximately one year outbalance Defendant's interests. The reasons given by the Court to decline a stay prior to the oral hearing, particularly the advanced stage of the proceedings, apply even more and a fortiori after the oral hearing. Added matter claims 1 and 9 – inadmissible generalization (Article 138(1)(c) EPC). The Court holds that the parent application does not provide support for claiming “requesting the streamlets (212) of the highest quality one of the copies (204, 206, 208) determined sustainable at that time” as stated in feature 1.7. [emphasis added]. By introducing the term “highest” in the claim as granted, this feature includes embodiments in which direct “jumps” to the highest quality are possible and introduce an inadmissible generalization. Indeed, this implies assessing whether, at a certain time, several higher qualities would be sustainable, a determination that neither the flow diagram of Figure 7 nor the (embodiment in the corresponding) description of the parent application foresees or suggests. 

IPPT20250528, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, MED-EL v Advanced Bionics
Withdrawal of action by party consent (R. 265 RoP)

IPPT20250527, UPC CFI, LD Hamburg, Dolby v Epson
Preliminary objection unfounded (R. 19 RoP, R. 20 RoP): Effective withdrawal of opt-out for all countries (R. 5 RoP). The relevant patent is clearly identified and the states are only mentioned in connection with the ownership. In this respect, it cannot be inferred from the withdrawal that it should only refer to the countries named there. Pursuant to R. 5.7 RoP a withdrawal of an opt-out cannot distinguish between countries.

IPPT20250526, UPC CFI, CD Munich, Baussmann v Raimund Beck Nageltechnik
Pleadings to be uploaded in workflow ‘Application for amendment of a patent’ in the CMS to allow plaintiff the opportunity to file a Rejoinder to the Reply to the Defence to revocation (R. 43.3 RoP)
  

IPPT20250527, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, InterDigital v Disney
Ex parte anti-anti-suit injunction (R. 211 RoP). The undisturbed conduct of proceedings before the UPC should be secured as a whole. No objections to the version of the application insofar as it extends to equivalent judicial or official measures, since in this respect it is not the formal designation of the judicial or official order as an "anti-suit injunction" that matters, but whether it has the same legal effect, even if the order has a different designation or is issued in a different procedural form. 

 IPPT20250523, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, Genevant v Moderna
Procedural order on preliminary objections (R. 19 RoP, R. 20 RoP). The PO’s filed on 24 April 2025 (…) on behalf of Moderna Belgium, Moderna Germany and Poland, are not admissible for these defendants (for Moderna Poland this only applies to action 192/25), as they are late filed and these defendants are therefore considered to submit to the jurisdiction and competence of the court and of the LD The Hague (R. 19.7 RoP). Unsubstantiated objections by certain defendants to international jurisdiction of the UPC dismissed and these defendants are considered to submit to the jurisdiction of the UPC (R. 19.7 RoP) (Article 31 UPCA, Article 32 UPCA). Jurisdiction regarding Moderna Poland, Moderna Norway and Spain because of allegation that Moderna Poland, Moderna Norway and Spain each not only infringe individually (asserting that jurisdiction can be based on Art. 7(2) BR), but that they also infringe the patent jointly with Moderna Netherlands in their home country. Therewith they infringe the same (national parts of a European) patent with the same product, which is enough connectivity to consider them co-defendants within the meaning of Art. 8(1) BR. Competence of Local Division The Hague as local division where one of the defendants has its residence and given the commercial relationship between the multiple defendants and the same alleged infringement (Article 33(1)(b) UPCA). Lack of long-arm jurisdiction (extended beyond the UPC territory) is to be dealt with in the main proceedings.
 

IPPT20250522, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Total Semiconductors v Texas Instruments
Panel review confirms case management order not to allow a further exchange of written pleadings (R. 12.5 RoP, R. 36 RoP, R. 333 RoP). A request pursuant to R. 36, 12.5 RoP calls for a sufficient degree of substantiation so that the judge-rapporteur can retrieve the essential facts from the application itself without having to study the file. This formal standard applies in general and does not depend on whether there was a change of the judge-rapporteur or not. As far as Claimant attempts to remedy the deficiencies in its request pursuant R. 333 RoP, these statements are irrelevant to the review proceedings. It is inherent in the review proceedings that it has the same basis as the impugned order. On a regular basis, the review only concerns the facts and the state of the dispute at the time the impugned order was issued, so that the additional arguments now put forward in the review proceedings do not justify a different outcome.
 

IPPT20250522, UPC CFI, CD Munich, Kunststoff v Häfele  
Stay of proceedings (R 295(d) RoP) awaiting the outcome of the settlement negotiations at the joint request of the parties. The oral hearing, which was originally scheduled for 4 June 2025, is cancelled and can be rescheduled to a later date, if this would become necessary.

IPPT20250521, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Hologic v Siemens
No security for costs (R. 158 RoP, Article 69 UPCA). Also the claimant is permitted to submit a request for security for costs, as this rule does not restrict such actions to a defendant only. It is sufficient for a defendant to establish that enforcement of a cost order is unduly burdensome. The burden of showing this is on the applicant of an order for security for costs. To this end, the applicant shall not only provide evidence as to the foreign law applicable in the territory where the order shall be enforced, but also its application. The Defendants have not provided evidence of the applicable foreign law, just an argument about such, nor have they provided evidence about the application of such law. The Claimant argues that the enforcement of UPC orders and decisions is not unduly burdensome in the United States of America. The Court notes that, according to the UPC case law, US courts routinely recognise and enforce judgments of foreign courts

IPPT20250521, UPC CFI, CD Paris, Kinexon v Ballinno
Patent number rectified from 1 994 067 into 1 944 067 (R. 353 RoP)

IPPT20250520, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Roche v Tandem
Confidentiality club regime R. 262A RoP)

IPPT20250519, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Dolby v Roku
No need to adjudicate because of settlement (R. 360 RoP), costs to be borne by respondent (R. 118.5 RoP). Giving cause for the action to be brought and requirement of a warning letter?
 

IPPT20250519, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Mailikie Innovations v Discord
Harmonization of time periods for lodging Statements of defence (R. 23 RoP)

IPPT20250516, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, DDP v Greenchemicals
Confidentiality club regime with penalty in case of a culpable breach (R. 262A RoP)
 

IPPT20250515, UPC CFI, CD Milan, Maschio Gaspardo v Spiridonakis Bros
Court allowed to inspect and to compare the objects of the proceedings (i.e., the patented and attacked objects) by viewing their dynamic functionality (Article 53(f) UPCA. R. 170 RoP). If a party offers to exhibit the object and submits a video of its operation to the court, the court may also order dynamic experiments and comparative tests 

IPPT20250515, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Belparts v IMI Hydronic
No bifurcation despite pending revocation action before the Paris Central Division (Article 33(3) UPCA). As both parties voted against bifurcation, the panel has decided to proceed with both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation. Furthermore, Belparts informed the court that the counterclaim for revocation contains different arguments to those in the central revocation action pending before the Central Division's Paris seat.
 

IPPT20250514, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Total Semiconductors v Texas Instruments - II
The final decision on whether to grant leave to amend the case to the effect that the infringement action also covers the AM67x product as an attacked embodiment postponed until the oral hearing because it may depend on claim interpretation (R. 263 RoP). Whether the new explicitly attacked embodiments have the same actual characteristics with regard to the features of the relevant patent claim as the attacked embodiments listed in the statement of claim and whether they will thus be covered by the operative part of a decision on the merits anyway, can only be assessed with certainty once the construction of the patent and the relevant facts of the case are established by the panel

IPPT20250514, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Total Semiconductors v Texas Instruments - I
The final decision on the admission of further written submissions  (R. 12.5 RoP, R. 36 RoP) is partially postponed until the oral hearing and otherwise rejected. Insofar as the decision is postponed, Claimant shall be given 3 two weeks to submit its submission in writing, being strictly limited to AVS Class 0. Afterwards Defendants have the opportunity to respond within two weeks.

IPPT20250513, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Huawei v MediaTek - II
IPPT20250513, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Huawei v MediaTek - I
Confidentiality and confidentiality club (Article 58 UPCA, R. 262 RoP, R. 262A RoP, Article 9 Trade Secrets Directive). Whether Rule 262A VerfO also covers the situation where (without a restriction on access being imposed on one party) the parties to the proceedings are required to treat confidential information as confidential vis-à-vis third parties or the public, or whether such an obligation arises directly from a simultaneous application pursuant to Rule 262.2 VerfO, does not require a final decision. Such an obligation of confidentiality would in any case follow from the analogous application of the aforementioned provisions. 

IPPT20250513, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Sanofi v Amgen

Second medical use claims: both infringement action and counterclaim for revocation unfounded (Article 25 UPCA, Article 65 UPCA). Both claimants have standing to sue as respectively patent proprietor and exclusive licensee (Article 47 UPCA). Objections based on pleading ignorance are in principle disregarded (R. 171.2 RoP). When a party pleads ignorance, the fact is not specifically contested as required by R. 171.2 RoP. Defendants apparently derive this objection from German procedural law, ignoring that the Rules of Procedure contain no corresponding provision. Priority: “same invention” (Article 87 EPC). A claimed invention is to be considered the “same invention” as the invention in a previous application if the skilled person can derive the subject-matter of the claim directly and unambiguously, using common general knowledge, from the previous application as a whole. Fictional novelty of (first and second) medical use claims (Article 54(4)(5) EPC). Medical use claims constitute an exception to the “normal” rules on novelty and provide a “notional novelty” by virtue of a legal fiction for substances or compositions for a specific (new) use that were already part of the prior art. Absent these provisions, a prior art disclosure of a substance would in principle be novelty destroying for a claim relating to said substance for a new use. The term “for use in”, as such, in a patent claim would normally be interpreted as the claimed product being “suitable for” the claimed use, but the scope of that claim would not be limited to said use. For (second) medical use claims, the novelty is not derived from the claimed substance or composition as such but from the claimed therapeutic use. In the case of a second medical use, a substance or composition within the meaning of Art. 54(4) EPC (for a use in a treating method = first medical use) is used for any specific use which is not comprised in the state of the art. Such a new therapeutic use can be a new indication, e.g. a disease not yet treated by the claimed substance, or an indication for a new group of patients. In order to benefit from the notional novelty afforded by Art. 54(5) EPC, second medical claims must relate to a specific use in a method according to Art. 53(c) EPC. Inventive step (Article 56 EPC). The ultimate assessment of the relevant facts and circumstances is a question of law which does not lend itself to the taking of evidence. An objective approach must be taken to the assessment of inventive step. The subjective ideas of the applicant or inventor are irrelevant. In principle, it is also irrelevant whether the invention is the result of serendipity or of systematic work involving (potentially costly and laborious) experimentation. It is only relevant what the claimed invention actually contributes to the prior art. In general, a claimed solution is obvious if, starting from the prior art, the skilled person would be motivated (i.e. have an incentive or in German: “Veranlassung” […]) to consider the claimed solution and to implement it as a next step (“nächster Schritt”, […]) in developing the prior art. Enabling disclosure (Article 83 EPC, Article 138(1)(b) EPC). It is the position of the Court that the subject-matter of a patent claim must be sufficiently disclosed in the patent as a whole, including the examples. It is the patent that has to demonstrate the workability of the claimed subject-matter. However, as the invention has to be disclosed sufficiently clear and complete for it to be carried out by the skilled person, the skilled person´s common general knowledge must also be taken into account when considering the question of sufficiency. In a case of a second medical use claim, the claimed “use”, which is based on a therapeutic effect, is part of the claim. Therefore, the use (including the therapeutic effect) has to be sufficiently (reproducibly) disclosed in the patent (as a whole). Infringement of a second medical use claim (Article 25(a) UPCA). For a finding of infringement of a second medical use claim, the alleged infringer must offer or place the medical product on the market in such way that it leads or may lead to the claimed therapeutic use of which the alleged infringer knows or reasonably should have known that it does. In other words, as an objective element, there must be either a prescription in order to lower Lp(a) levels, or there must be at least circumstances showing that such a use may be expected to occur. In addition, as a subjective element the infringer must know this or reasonably should have known.

IPPT20250513, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Fujifilm v Kodak

Application for rectification dismissed (R. 353 RoP). No “obvious slip”: the declaration of the Court’s intention in the decision or order does not deviate from the intention that existed when the decision was made.

IPPT20250513, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Kaldewei v Bette

Cost decision  (Article 69 UPCA, R. 156 RoP): The defendant shall reimburse the claimant for costs totaling € 84,950.00 

IPPT20250509, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Samsung v ZTE

The time periods for the Statements of defence are set uniformly for all Defendants at 3 July 2025 (R. 9.3 RoP, R. 23 RoP)

IPPT20250509, UPC CFI, LD Milan, Oerlikon v Bhagat

Cost decision (Article 69 UPCA, R. 156 RoP, ): € 77.064 (instead of requested € 136.756.) The maximum limit, in accordance with the principle of proportionality, can only be reached in limited situations, for example due to the complexity of the issues involved, the number of patents examined, the parties involved or the use of several languages. As stated in previous decisions of the Court, the costs actually incurred by the necessary measure must not be disproportionate in terms of their specific amount. In particular, they must not be disproportionate to the amount in dispute, the importance of the issue, the degree of difficulty and complexity of the legal and factual issues relevant to the decision, and the prospects of success of the measure involving the costs

IPPT20250509, UPC CFI, LD Hamburg, JingAo v Chint
Panel review of dismissal of security for costs by order of 2 April 2025 rejected (Article 69(4) UPCA, R. 158 RoP, R. 333 RoP). Reference can be made to the contested order for the reasons. The Defendants have not put forward any new convincing arguments. There is no experience available with regard to the enforcement of decisions on costs of the UPC in the People’s Republic of China.

IPPT20250508, UPC CFI, LD Lisbon, Boehringer Ingelheim v Zentiva

Provisional measures rejected; no imminent infringement (Article 62(1) UPCA). Imminent infringement (Article 62(1) UPCA). The UPC must assess imminent infringement independently, solely based on the interpretation of the UPCA, and not on national legislation. In that regard, the Court must evaluate the risk of infringement in light of Art. 62 and 25 UPCA. The risk of infringement cannot be established through an abstract assessment. An infringement is deemed imminent if, in light of the overall circumstances of the case, it can be concluded that the potential infringer has engaged in conduct that is likely to result in an infringement under Art. 25 UPCA. In this regard, it must be established on a case-by-case basis that the potential infringer has carried out acts that make it more likely than not that it intends to offer or place the product on the market before the patent expires […]. Imminent infringement must then be assessed from the point of view of the concrete likelihood that, in light of the circumstances of the case, the Defendant is more likely than not to commit an act of infringement. Mere issuance of a Prior Evaluation Procedure (“PEP”) does not create a risk of imminent infringement. Jurisdiction of the UPC regarding provisional measures because of alleged imminent infringement by defendant (Article 32(1)(a),(c) UPCA, Article 62(1) UPCA). It is irrelevant that an administrative entity issued the Notice from which the imminent infringement arises. According to the Applicant, the imminent infringement of its European Patent is what prompts the need for provisional measures, as the Defendant is currently in a position to offer or place its infringing products on the market at any moment. This factual assertion is, in light of the above-mentioned legal framework, sufficient to establish the jurisdiction and competence of the UPC. Provisional measures not unnecessary because of PI in national Portuguese proceedings (Article 62(1) UPCA). Not the same asserted rights (SPC instead of EP), not identical parties and different territorial scope.

IPPT20250508, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Polidoro v Bekaert

Extension of time period for the Claimant’s Reply to the Statement of defence, the Defence to the Counterclaim for revocation and an Application to amend the patent until 19 May 2025 since access to unredacted version of the Statement of defence was delayed because of setting up of confidentiality club regime (R. 29 RoP, R. 30 RoP, R. 262A RoP)

IPPT20250508, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Grundfos v Hefei

Patent infringed (Article 25 UPCA) and valid (Article 65 UPCA). Claim interpretation of “Umschalten" (Article 69 EPC). The fact that the contested patent is also based on this understanding is already clear from the English version of the patent claim (which is not decisive for the scope of protection, however). Enabling disclosure (Article 83 EPC). That the patent specification learns nothing regarding the design of means for connecting, does not relate to the feasibility, but at most to the clarity of the claim [Article 84 EPC], which is not a ground for invalidity within the meaning of Art. 138 EPC. Novelty and prior art (Article 54 EPC). An invention is considered new if it differs from the prior art in at least one of its known features. Only that which is immediately apparent to a person skilled in the art from publication or prior use is considered to be prior art […. Findings which a skilled person only gains on the basis of further considerations or the use of further documents or uses are not prior art. Further invalidity objections – in terms of new prior art or new arguments based on already submitted prior art - introduced after the Counterclaim for revocation, constitute an amendment of the counterclaim for invalidity within the meaning of R. 263 RoP. (R. 9.2 RoP, R. 25 RoP, R. 29 RoP). Even if it can be assumed in favour of the defendant, even without an express request, that the introduction of further citations implicitly involves a request for the admission of the associated extension of the counterclaim for nullity, the defendant has not submitted any arguments which, according to R. 263(2) RoP could justify the admission of this extension of the counterclaim for annulment despite the delay. Decision of Chinese National Intellectual Property Office, in which a Chinese parallel patent was revoked on the grounds of lack of inventive step, disregarded as late filed (R. 9.2 RoP). Inventive step (Article 56 EPC). In general, a claimed solution is obvious if the skilled person, starting from the prior art, would be motivated to consider the claimed solution and, as a next step in developing the state of the art. On the other hand, it may be relevant whether the skilled person would have expected particular difficulties in carrying out the next step or steps. Depending on the facts and circumstances of the case, it may be permissible to combine disclosures from the prior art. A technical effect or advantage achieved by the claimed subject matter over the prior art may be an indication of inventive step. A feature arbitrarily selected from several possibilities cannot generally contribute to inventive step.

IPPT20250508, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Sanofi v Accord

Case management judge-rapporteur deciding the order in which issues are to be resolved (R. 332(d) RoP). The Judge-Rapporteur decides to refer all pending requests to the panel for decision after the main oral hearing. The Judge-Rapporteur does not see any possibility of disposing of the entire case immediately. Since difficult procedural and substantive issues need to be decided, it's more efficient to wait for the outcome of the oral proceedings before the EPO's BoA. Moreover, if the patent in question is upheld by the BoA, the panel should only decide on these difficult issues after an oral hearing and only if they are still decisive.

IPPT20250508, UPC CFI, LD Brussels, Barco v Yealink

Application for rectification of final order dismissed (R. 353 RoP). A decision/order of the Court should be read and interpreted as a whole, the motivational part of the decision/order (grounds) being as much a part of the decision/order as its substantive part (decision).

IPPT20250507, UPC CFI, LD Milan, Ericsson v Asustek

Withdrawal of (i) infringement action against and (ii) counterclaim for revocation by defendant Digital River’s, which is in insolvency proceedings (R. 265 RoP, R. 311 RoP). The Court finds that the principles of fairness and equity require that both Ericsson and Digital River bear their own costs in relation to these withdrawal proceedings. (Article 69(2) UPCA)

IPPT20250506, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Ona v Apple
Procedural order specifying confidential information (R. 262 RoP)

IPPT20250502, UPC CFI, LD Brussels, OrthoApnea

Costs proceedings suspended until the UPC Court of Appeal has issued a judgment on the merits or the dispute is otherwise terminated (Article 69 UPCA, Article 74 UPCA, R. 150 RoP, R. 295(c) RoP). The Judge-Rapporteur infers that, as an exception to the general rule (starting position), the stay of cost proceedings is possible in the following cases (whether individually or cumulatively): If an appeal has been lodged against the decision on the merits by the first judge (R.295(c) RoP), the Judge-Rapporteur may suspend the proceedings ex officio; If in the light of the "proper administration of justice", it is appropriate for the judge-rapporteur to stay the costs proceedings (in application of R. 295(m) RoP); If the specific circumstances of the case indicate that the application of Article 69(1) would lead to "unfair" consequences for the "unsuccessful party" (in this case, the Respondent), it is the Respondent’s responsibility to convince the Judge-Rapporteur of these “unfair” consequences arising from an enforceable costs decision.

IPPT20250502, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Evac v Shanghai VacDrain

Partial settlement regarding defendants 4 through 6 (R. 365.1 RoP)

IPPT20250502, UPC CFI, President, Interdigital v Disney

Language of the proceedings changed from German to English, the language in which the patent was granted (Article 49(3) UPCA, R. 14 RoP, R. 323 RoP)

IPPT20250502, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, 10x Genomics v Curio Bioscience

Preparation for oral hearing (R. 105 RoP, R. 112 RoP). Late filed samples (R. 9.2 RoP). Panel will decide after the hearing on whether or not to disregard any sample made available after the closure of the written proceedings and one week before the hearing

IPPT20250501, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Aesculap v Shanghai International

Request to assign an additional technically qualified judge to the panel in summary proceedings (R. 205 RoP). Although the involvement of a technically qualified judge ex officio is only mentioned in R. 34 RoP and thus in the provisions on the main proceedings, Art. 8(5) sentence 2 UPCA grants the panel in general, and thus also in summary proceedings, the right to call in such a judge on its own initiative after hearing the parties if it considers this appropriate

IPPT20250430, UPC CFI, CD Paris, Kinexon v Ballinno
Patent revoked (Article 65 UPCA): lack of novelty (claim 8) and lack of inventive step: the skilled person, looking to improve D3 to provide a more reliable ball contact detection, would have looked in the literature of games and sports how to increase the reliability of the detection, including D2, which belongs to this technical field and teaches a solution to this technical problem. D2 provides such a solution, which answers the objective technical problem, so that it is obvious for the skilled person to use this solution within the method and system of D3. Inventive step (Article 56 EPC). In general, a claimed solution is obvious if, starting from the prior art, the skilled person would be motivated […] to consider the claimed solution and to implement it as a next step […] in developing the prior art. On the other hand, it may be relevant whether the skilled person would have expected any particular difficulties in taking any next step(s). Depending on the facts and circumstances of the case, it may be allowed to combine prior art disclosures. A technical effect or advantage achieved by the claimed subject matter compared to the prior art may be an indication for inventive step. A feature that is selected in an arbitrary way out of several possibilities cannot generally contribute to inventive step. Interpretation of main claim, dependant claims and embodiments (Article 69 EPC). Claim feature not limited to football or offside detection. A broad, general term used in the main claim is not to be limited to an understanding corresponding to the more specific or narrower features used in a dependant claim. Instead, the dependant claim merely indicates possible embodiments of the patented invention, which may be linked to additional advantages. Embodiments generally serve to describe options for realizing the invention and therefore do not generally permit a restrictive interpretation of a more general patent claim. Embodiments mentioned in the patent description only permit the conclusion that they fall under the claim; they do not restrict the scope of the patent claim. 

IPPT20250430, UPC CFI, President, Interdigital v Disney

Language of the proceedings changed from German to English, the language in which the patent was granted (Article 49(3) UPCA, R. 14 RoP, R. 323 RoP)

IPPT20250430, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Powermat v Anker

Mutually agreed service date for all defendants (R. 6 RoP, R. 9.3 RoP)

IPPT20250430, UPC CFI, LD Hamburg, AGFA v Gucci

Both infringement action (Article 25 UPCA) and counterclaim for revocation (Article 65 UPCA) dismissed. Counterclaim for revocation may attack the patent in its entirety, even though single claims are not a part of the infringement request (Article 32(1)(e) UPCA, Article 65 UPCA). Claim construction (Article 69 EPC). Patent as “own lexicon”: The Court construes the feature “achromatic” according to the definition given in the description in para. [0021] of the patent based on the principle that a patent may be used as its “own lexicon”. Specifications in the description that are not consistent with the granted claims cannot serve as a basis of a broad interpretation of a claim: Claimant deleted the term “chromatic colour” from claim 1 in order to distinguish it from US 2010/233441A1. […]. New invalidity grounds or new documents considered novelty destroying or convincing starting points for the assessment of lack of inventive step in the oral hearing for the first time (R. 263 RoP, R. 9.2 RoP).

IPPT20250430, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Fujifilm v Kodak

Exchange of members of confidentiality club allowed only in part (R. 262A RoP). Claimant itself decided to relocate the concerned three members internally without ensuring that they could continue to work on the case, at least on a secondary basis. Claimant did not explain why such an arrangement was not possible. An exchange of the three members would result in further persons gaining access to the confidential information

IPPT20250430, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, 10x Genomics v Curio Bioscience
Late filed samples (R. 9.2 RoP). Panel will decide after the hearing on whether or not to disregard any sample made available after the closure of the written proceedings and one week before the hearing  

IPPT20250429, UPC CFI, LD Paris, ArcelorMitall v Xpeng

Withdrawal permitted (R. 265 RoP,). In the present case, ArcelorMittal’s request for withdrawal is submitted before the close of the written procedure and even before the Defendants filed any brief on the merits. In light of the parties’ applications, the Court sees no objection to permitting the withdrawal in the case at hand. The Court notes that the Claimant has declared not to seek any decision on costs, except concerning the reimbursement of the Court fees under R. 370.9(b) already paid. In the case at hand, only ArcelorMittal has made an application for partial reimbursement

IPPT20250429, UPC CFI, CD Paris, BMW v ITCiCo Spain
Confirmed that costs incurred by successful party regarding application to set aside a decision by default (R. 356 RoP) are to be claimed in separate proceedings.

IPPT20250429, UPC CFI, CD Paris, Roche Diabetes v Tandem Diabetes

The mere circumstance of a pending appeal against the decision on the merits does not constitute a sufficient reason to order the stay of the proceedings for cost decision (R. 295(m) RoP). Orders the defendants to pay jointly and severally € 117.741,62 as costs incurred by Roche (Article 69 UPCA)

IPPT20250428, UPC CFI, LD Milan, Ericsson v Asustek

Confidentiality club as agreed by parties: external eyes only request rejected (Article 58 UPCA, R. 262A RoP). In the opinion of the Court, it is therefore possible to order the adoption of an “external eyes only” regime, at least in cases where there is an actual and proven risk of conflict between the patent system and antitrust law and provided that the further conditions set out in the provisions of the above-mentioned European Commission communication are also met.

IPPT20250428, UPC CFI, LD Hamburg, Nera v Xiaomi

Application rejected for disregarding statements in point 15 of plaintiff’s reply of 10 march 2025 as late filed (R. 9.2 RoP, Rule 29(a) RoP, Rule 30 RoP. Plaintiff has satisfied the requirements of Rule 29 and 30 RoP in its response to the counterclaim and request for amendment of the patent dated 7 November 2024, which is why the supplementary explanations in the plaintiff's reply dated 10 March 2025 cannot be rejected as belated. The auxiliary requests 19/19A and 22/22A are therefore not new auxiliary requests which, according to Rule 30.2 VerfO, would require the court's approval

IPPT20250425, UPC CFI, RD Nordic-Baltic, Viking v Stanley Black & Decker Baltic

Withdrawal of application for provisional measures by party consent (R. 265 RoP)

IPPT20250424, UPC CFI, LD Paris, Seoul Viosys v Laser Components

Patent infringement (Article 25 UPCA) does not require the claimant to prove that the defendant was previously aware of the existence of the patent and the materiality of the alleged infringement. Territoriality of the acts infringement (Article 34 UPCA, R. 13.1(m) RoP, R. 171.1 RoP); only in France - no evidence of sales in Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom. No damages awarded (Article 68 UPCA). As the claimant has not submitted any evidence to justify the amount of the payments sought, the Court will not grant the claim. Claim interpretation (Article 69 EPC) The term ‘contact electrode’ is not limited to an ‘ohmic contact’. Most importantly, claim 1 of the patent is silent on the requirement for ohmic contact. Even if ohmic electrodes are the simplest, ohmic contact is not the only option, since an LED chip could also work with a Schottky-type current. Furthermore, the term ‘contact electrode’ as mentioned in the French language is merely a translation of the original English version ‘contact electrode’, which could also have been translated as ‘electrode in contact’ and does not mean that this electrode is dedicated to a specific contact such as ohmic contact. Report has the probative value appropriate for a private expert opinion (R. 170.1(b) RoP). None of the criticisms of the probative value of the TESCAN report produced by SEOUL VIOSYS are relevant to demonstrate that it is inappropriate.

IPPT20250424, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Rädlinger v Henle

Extension of time period from 28 May 2025 until 16 June 2025 for plaintiff to reply to Statement of defence and counterclaim for revocation because of late delivery of USB stick containing Annexes (R. 9.3 RoP, R. 29 RoP)

IPPT20250423, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Maxel v Samsung

Uniform setting of service date Statement of claim and deadline for Statement of defence following agreement between the parties (R. 9.3 RoP)

IPPT20250423, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Dish v Aylo

Order setting out decisions taken at interim conference (R. 105.5 RoP): I. Confirmation of the date for oral proceedings, II. Formulation of the request,  III. Interpretation of the patent in suit, IV. Legal status: - Inadmissible extension of the parent application; - Novelty and inventive step in relation to WO 02/49343 (WO'343); - Novelty and inventive step in relation to US 6,161,137 (US'137); V. Literal realisation by the contested embodiments; VI. Equivalent realisation; VIII. Value in dispute; X. Presentations at the oral hearing; XI. Time limits

IPPT20250423, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Labrador Diagnostics v bioMérieux

Bifurcation at request of claimant, without objection of defendant (Article 33(3) UPCA, R. 37 RoP). No stay of infringement action

IPPT20250423, UPC LD Düsseldorf, Maxeon v Aiko 
No bifurcation of infringement action and counterclaim for revocation ((R. 37.2 RoP))

IPPT20250423, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, CUP&CINO v Alpina Coffee
Confidentiality club established corresponding with agreement of the parties (R. 262A RoP)

IPPT20250423, UPC CFI, LD Hamburg, Malikie v Nintendo

Scope of confidential information subject to confidentiality club (R. 262A RoP): except for confidential information that has come to the knowledge of the receiving party outside these proceedings and was obtained by the receiving party on a non-confidential basis from a source other than the disclosing party or its affiliates, provided that this source is not itself bound by a confidentiality agreement with the disclosing party or its affiliates or by any other obligation of confidentiality towards them.

IPPT20250422, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Jinko v Longi
Agreement between parties on appearance of defendant 2 and extending deadline for Statement of defence and Counterclaim for revocation (R. 23 RoP)

IPPT20250422, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Ortovox v Mammut - I
Reasonable and proportionate legal costs (Article 69 UPCA, R. 152 RoP). That several lawyers from the same law firm were acting on behalf of the plaintiff does not preclude the necessity and appropriateness of the costs. Infringement analyses carried out in the run-up to the summary proceedings served to prepare for the main proceedings, which were to be expected in any case against the background of the parallel Swiss nullity proceedings and the Rules of Procedure of the Unified Patent Court. On this basis, it is justified to allocate the costs incurred there to the main proceedings. Drafting a warning letter, an application for interim measures or a statement of claim, fall within the core area of a lawyer's work. Amount claimed falls within the limits set by the Administrative Committee’s decision of 24 April 2024, which apply separately to proceedings for interim measures and main proceedings.

IPPT20250422, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Ortovox v Mammut - II
Reasonable and proportionate legal costs (Article 69 UPCA, R. 152 RoP). Assumed that fees calculated on the basis of the German Lawyers' Fees Act are generally necessary and reasonable and therefore also recoverable before the Unified Patent Court.

IPT20250422, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Ortovox v Mammut - III

Legal representation costs are confidential information subject to confidentiality club  (R. 262A RoP): plaintiff's legal representatives have an interest in keeping confidential the costs incurred in the course of the mandate relationship and which are not generally known. Nor can it be inferred from the defendants' submissions that at least some of the information classified by the plaintiff as confidential is generally known.

IPPT20250422, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Atlas v TP-Link
Withdrawal of action by party consent (R. 265 RoP)

IPPT20250422, UPC CFI, CD Milan, Pfizer v GlaxoSmithKline
Withdrawal by party agreement, no cost decision, 60% Reimbursement of Court fees (R. 265 RoP)

IPPT20250418, UPC CFI, LD Paris, HP v Lama
Access for party in Italian patent litigation granted but limited to the statement of claim by HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY d (in redacted form, exhibit PCD) and the Statement of defence by LAMA France (R. 262 RoP)

IPPT20250418, UPC CFI, CD Munich, Kunststoff v Häfele  
Number of auxiliary reques0st to be limited to up to 10 (from 80) (R. 50 RoP, R. 30 RoP). New inventive step arguments based on D16, raised for the first time in the Reply to the defence to revocation, will be disregarded by the Court (R. 263 RoP, R. 9.2 RoP). Apparently the Claimant had developed the arguments already in October 2024 and then waited 4 months before introducing them into these proceedings.

IPPT20250417, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Promosome v BioNTech
Partial Preliminary objection regarding embodiment that has been produced and sold only before 1 June 2023, i.e., establishment of the UPC to be dealt with in the main proceeding (R. 19 RoP, R. 20.2 RoP.) Awaiting outcome of appeal proceedings on the same issue in another case.

IPPT20250417, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Atlas v Vantiva
With the agreement of the parties, the proceedings are suspended at the plaintiff's request (R. 295(a) RoP)for a cost decision (R. 150 RoP). 

IPPT20250417, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Atlas v TP-Link
Partial suspension. With the agreement of the parties, the proceedings against defendants 2) to 4) are suspended at the request of the defendant (R. 295(a) RoP)

IPPT20250416, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Emboliner v AorticLab
Security for costs ordered (Article 69(4) UPCA). A party filing a counterclaim for revocation (Art. 32 (1) e) UPCA) is an “Applicant” according to Art. 69 (4) UPCA. Respondent gives rise to a legitimate and real concern that a possible order for costs may not be recoverable, because he himself claims that he would be driven into insolvency in case of an injunction to desist. In terms of time, an order for costs would follow an injunction to desist so that Respondent would no longer be solvent at that point in time

IPPT20250416, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, Genevant v Moderna
Multiple defendants. No extension of deadline to file a R. 19 RoP Preliminary objection, if any (R. 9 RoP). Deadlines to lodge Statements of defense not extended but streamlined (R. 23 RoP)

IPPT20250416, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Dish v Aylo
Request to allow exchange of further written pleadings rejected (R. 36 RoP). Whether plaintiff takes a different view on the interpretation of an allegedly similar patent claim in other proceedings is irrelevant for the interpretation of the patent in suit. A different view on another patent does not constitute admissible interpretative material.

IPPT20250416, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Hereaeus v Vibrantz 
Time periods for submitting written pleadings not affected by members of confidentiality  club being away on holiday (R. 9 RoP, R. 262A RoP)

IPPT20250416, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Bekaert v Siltronic
An order to preserve evidence and conduct an inspection may serve to secure evidence of individual acts of use (Article 60 UPCA, Article 25 UPCA).The list of measures for preserving evidence of R. 196. RoP is not exhaustive (Article 60(2) UPCA). The specific measures required must always be decided in light of the applicant's interest in preserving evidence, taking into account the circumstances of the individual case. Apart from that, the related documents expressly mentioned in R. 196.1 (c) RoP can easily be interpreted as referring to distribution. Evidence of the distributor's use typically includes delivery notes, invoices, etc.

IPPT20250415, UPC CFI, LD Milan, Dainese v Alpinestars Research
UPC Milan Local Division has “universal” jurisdiction regarding defendant domiciled in Italy (Article 32 UPCA, Article 4(1) EU Regulation Brussels Recast and amended by Reg. n. 542/2014. If it is a Court of domicile, the UPC has competence to adjudicate on infringement issues related to European patents validated in non-UPC countries.

IPPT20250414, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Maxeon Solar v Aiko Energy
Claimant to provide security for legal costs and other expenses to the Defendants 1., 2. and 4. in the amount of EUR 100.000  (Article 69 UPCA, R. 158 RoP). The Claimant has not provided any convincing evidence to substantiate its financial situation and, in particular, its ability to bear the possible costs of the proceedings. In its statement, the Claimant confirms that the solar market is currently difficult (for everyone in this market), in particular in view of the various infringing activities affecting its business.

IPPT20250414, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Syngenta v Sumi Agro
No bifurcation (R. 37 RoP, Article 33(3) UPCA). Both parties requested the Court to hear both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation. In the absence of any good reason to the contrary, the Panel decides to hear both. Amendment (R. 263 RoP) to include the territories of the Republic of Poland, the Czech Republic and the United Kingdom following the decision of the European Court of Justice in BSH Hausgeräte GmbH v. Electrolux AB (Article 4 BR) could not have been made earlier with reasonable diligence. The panel is of the opinion that Syngenta was not obliged to include the territories in question already in the original statement of claim on the basis of the opinions of AG Emiliou, as these opinions are not binding on the Court of Justice of the European Union and the legal uncertainty resulting from this is a good reason not to base procedural decisions on opinions of the AG.
 

IPPT20250414, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Edwards v Meril
Enforcement of order of the Court (R. 118.8 RoP, R. 69.1 RgR). An authentic paper copy of the decision can be issued by the Registry of the Munich Local Division without the need for translation, as Meril has indicated that no translation will be required.

IPPT20250414, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Seoul Viosys v expert e-Commerce – II
Compensation for representation costs (Article 69 UPCA, R. 152 RoP). The first and second defendants shall each pay the claimant EUR 31,982.85 for the costs of the infringement action within 21 days of service of this decision. The second defendant shall pay the claimant a further amount of EUR 51,112.73 for the costs of the counterclaim for annulment within 21 days of service of this decision.

IPPT20250414, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Seoul Viosys v expert e-Commerce – I
Defendant’s application for the determination of reimbursable costs is inadmissible because it was not filed within one month of service of the decision (R. 151 RoP)
 

IPPT20250413, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Maxeon Solar v Aiko Energy
Extension of confidentiality order (R. 262A RoP) to […] green-shaded statements/numbers [...]. An extension of the confidentiality regime can only be considered for the specific information for which an extension is requested. However, if the Defendants seek such an extension, a specific explanation of the interest in protecting the confidentiality of the information in question will be required.
 

IPPT20250411, UPC CFI, LD Munich, 10x Genomics v Bruker
Case management. Immediate continuation of written procedure ordered after submission of revised application to amend patent with a total 4 auxiliary requests, oral hearing 17 September 20215 remains unchanged. A total of 4 auxiliary requests is indisputably in each case a reasonable number of auxiliary requests (Rule 30.1 c) RoP). The longer a proceeding has already lasted, the greater weight is given to the right to be heard within a reasonable period of time in a fair proceeding when deciding whether to continue the proceeding (R. 332 RoP)

IPPT20250411, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals v Pfizer
Withdrawal by party consent (R. 265 RoP)

IPPT20250411, UPC CFI, CD Milan, Eoflow v Insulet
No further exchange of written pleadings after CoA decision of 30 April 2025 in PI proceedings (R. 36 RoP). The parties have fully argued their respective positions at both the preliminary and the substantive stages of the proceedings and their positions have been well examined, sometimes even repeatedly. Instructions for interim conference (R. 103 RoP). US’159 (Flaherty) inadmissible as late filed: could have been produced earlier ((Article 76 UPCA,) In a revocation action, prior art (potentially detrimental to the patent or not) cannot be filed at a later stage. The filing of prior art at late stage, or at the stage of the replies prevents the opponent from filing full observations (reply and rejoinder) on a crucial point of the legal assessment. This is contrary to the adversarial principle laid down in Art. 76 UPCA. Eoflow to provide security for costs of € 500.000 (R. 158 RoP). The company's overall situation appears to be not positive, either from the point of view of its assets and liabilities or from the point of view of its sales and expansion prospects, and it is at least doubtful from the point of view of its liquidity.

IPPT20250410, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Yellow Sphere v Tabbert

Direct patent infringement (Article 25 UPCA), revocation dismissed: permanent injunction (Article 63(1) UPCA), provision of information (Article 67 UPCA), and corrective measures (Article 64 UPCA): recall, removing the product from channels of commerce , destruction (Article 64(2)(e) UPCA), Provisional damages of € 100.000 (Article 68 UPCA). No license for the contested embodiments. Enforcement not subject to security (Article 82(2) UPCA). Competence of the UPC (Article 32(1)(a) UPCA, Article 83 UPCA) extends to infringement proceedings concerning a European patent which had not yet expired at the time of the entry into force of the UPCA at 1 June 2023 and Also encompasses claims for (allged) acts of use prior to 1 June 2023 and rior to 2 February 2024 (withdrawal of the opt-out). Unfounded rebuttal of patent proprietorship plaintiff (R. 8.5 RoP):  Product-by-process claim interpretation (Article 69 EPC). Standard for assessing novelty (Article 54 EPC): Standard for inventive step (Article 56 EPC): No prior use right (Article 28 UPCA). Damages or compensation derived from provisional protection conferred by a published European patent application (Article 32(1)(f) UPCA). 

IPPT20250409, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Promosome v BioNTech
Agreement by parties to provide security for costs and by way of deposit (R.158 RoP). The request to give a decision by default pursuant to Rule 355 RoP in the event the Claimant fails to provide the ordered security within the time specified by the Court is rejected is currently unfounded and premature. 

IPPT20250409, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Dolby v Beko
Limited access to pleadings in pending proceedings regarding claim construction and validity to party  in infringement proceedings regarding patent in suit (R. 262 RoP).

IPPT20250409, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Edwards v Meril
Withdrawal as suggested (R. 265 RoP) of applications for a cost decision (R. 151 RoP) and for protection of confidential information (R. 262 RoP). No cost reimbursement is warranted in the context of an application pursuant to R. 262 RoP or the withdrawal thereof

IPPT20250409, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Tridonic v Cupower
Partial rectification of decision of 7 March 2025 (R. 353 RoP). The phrase ‘directly and indirectly’ Is incorrectly used in the decision as it was deleted in auxiliary request, so that it was a clerical error and thus an obvious inaccuracy. Based on Rule 353 RoP, the parties are not entitled to have all lawyers from the same law firm who were involved in the proceedings at any time listed in the rubrum of the decision

IPPT20250409 UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Corning v Hisense
Request to separate proceedings rejected (R. 336 RoP): e Statement of defence in one brief by way of upload to the CMS. R.262A RoP may not address conflicts that a representative may have when representing various defendants in parallel. 

IPPT20250408, UPC CFI, LD Milan, Dainese v Alpinestars
UPC Milan Local Division has “universal” jurisdiction regarding defendant domiciled in Italy (Article 32 UPCA, Article 4(1) EU Regulation Brussels Recast and amended by Reg. n. 542/2014. If it is a Court of domicile, the UPC has competence to adjudicate on infringement issues related to European patents validated in non-UPC countries.

IPPT20250407, UPC CFI, LD Milan, Dainese v Alpinestars
Leave to limit a claim unconditionally, which shall always be granted (R. 263.3 RoP) applies both in cases where a) the claimant limits the relief sought (petitum), for example by reducing the relief sought (e.g. injunction or damages); and b) the claimant limits the cause of action (causa petendi), for example after starting the proceedings to protect a plurality of patents, then it renounces one of them. Differently from rule 265 RoP (withdrawal), rule 263 RoP does not provide the regulation of the proceeding costs, because the proceedings continue against the defendant in relation to other claims. This solution doesn’t go against the "losing party bears the costs" principle, established by Article 69 UPCA: indeed, the unconditional limitation requested by the claimant will be considered by the Court regulating the costs decision.

IPPT20250404, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Edwards v Meril
Direct infringement of patent (Article 25 UPCA), counterclaim for revocation dismissed (Article 65 UPCA). Relevant date for determining the relevant territories covered by the patentee's request (Article 34 UPCA) is the date of filing of the statement of claim and not the date of the last oral hearing. Same alleged infringement (Article 33(1)(b) UPCA).In the context of a European patent without unitary effect, the term "the same infringement" addresses situations where multiple defendants are accused of infringing the relevant national designations of the same European patent by the same product or process. Inventive step (Article 56 EPC).Problem-solution-approach developed by the European patent Office (EPO) shall primarily be applied as a tool to the extent feasible to enhance legal certainty and further align the jurisprudence of the Unified Patent Court with the jurisprudence of the EPO and the Boards of Appeal (BoA). Claim construction (Article 69 EPC). Emphasised that a narrowing construction of a broader claim language ("Auslegung unterhalb des Wortlauts") on the basis of the description or drawings should only be allowed in exceptional cases Added matter in case of divisional applications (Article 138(c) EPC): Where the patent is a divisional application, this requirement applies to each earlier application. The Court of Appeal notes that the assessment of added matter cannot be limited to those parts of the original application which the patentee has indicated as the basis for an amended claim during the examination proceedings before the EPO, since a proper understanding of those parts also requires an assessment of their content in the context of the disclosure of the application as a whole. Injunction subject to a recurring penalty (Article 63 UPCA). A declaration to cease and desist without a penalty clause by one or more but not all defendants cannot secure the patentee's interest in defending the exclusive nature of its right in the same way as a court order. The risk remains that the members of the group will re-organise their business around such isolated cease-and-desist declarations and thus continue to infringe the patent in the relevant territories without the risk of having to pay a penalty. Decision not subject to security (R. 352 RoP)

IPPT20250404, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Fingon v Samsung
Inadmissible preliminary objection (R. 19 RoP): the validity of the withdrawal of the opt-out does not constitute an admissible ground for a preliminary objection (Article 83 UPCA). Material ownership of the patent-in-suit is to be dealt with in the main proceedings (R. 20.2 RoP). Unfounded preliminary objection with regard to the temporal scope of jurisdiction. No doubt about the UPC’s jurisdiction regarding alleged infringing acts committed before its entry into force.

IPPT20250404, UPC CFI, LD Lisbon, Ericsson v Asustek - II
Ericsson must reimburse AsusTek, Arvato, and Digital River after dismissed provisional measures only EUR 4,946.22 (Article 69 UPCA, R. 150 RoP). With regard to the costs of representation and the costs of expert evidence claimed by AsusTek, Arvato, and Digital River, there may be an overlap with proceedings on the merits, thereby creating a risk of double assessment of costs, contrary to the principles of equity and proportionality.

IPPT20250404, UPC CFI, LD Lisbon, Ericsson v Asustek - I
Withdrawal of action by party consent against insolvent defendant Digital River Ireland (R. 265 RoP, R. 311 RoP). Extension of time period to lodge Statement of defence with two months from the date of service of amended Statement of claim (R. 23 RoP)

IPPT20250403, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Promosome v BioNTech
Request to produce evidence rejected (Article 59 UPCA, R. 190 RoP). The Defendants have not indicated what fact(s) they intend to prove by relying on the requested evidence. 

IPPT20250403, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Corning v Hisense
Preliminary objection rejected (R. 20 RoP). Claimant submitted in its Statement of claim sufficient facts, which establish competence of the Local Division Mannheim for each and every defendant under Art. 33(1)(a)UPCA, which is reinforced by R. 303.1 RoP. Whether or not those allegations are true or not and if in fact all glass sheets stem from the same process and are identical or not is subject to the main proceedings (cf. UPC_CoA_188/2024 Order of 3 September 2024 para.18). There is no obligation to sue OEMs and suppliers in one proceeding.

IPPT20250402, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Corning v Hisense
Request to stay proceedings rejected (R. 295 RoP). No obligation to sue OEMs and suppliers in one proceeding. Rather it is common practice, which is not counter to any procedural rights of a defendant, to initiate proceedings against different parties separately, especially under circumstances, where the service of a statement of claim may be easy upon some defendants but problematic with regard to others. Court order to use one workflow (R. 9 RoP, R. 336 RoP). There is no plausible reason to file identical requests submitting identical arguments in multiple workflows instead of combining them, even where defendants of the same group are concerned, especially where all defendants are represented by identical counsel. This causes tremendous unnecessary work on the side of all parties concerned as well as for the court. 

IPPT20250402, UPC CFI, LD Hamburg, JingAo v Chint
Security for costs dismissed (Article 69(4) UPCA, R. 158 RoP). The sole reference to the past difficulties of service under the Hague Service Convention in Germany as a member state does not provide sufficient reasons. As long as the Defendants’ have not provided any well-reasoned facts that a decision on cost by the UPC cannot actually be enforced, it must be assumed that this is just as likely in the People’s Republic of China as in any other non-EU states.

IPPT20250402, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Biomarin v Ascendis
Preliminary objections rejected (R. 19 RoP). No opt-out applies: withdrawal of opt-out (Exhibit CRPO-1) identifies the opted-out patent. Sufficiently shown the infringement (actual and threatened) of the Patent in the statement of claim. The contested embodiment (...) and acts of infringement (...) are clearly explained in the statement of claim and summarized in the legal assessment accordingly (...). Furthermore, it is undisputed that the infringing acts occurred in Germany, i.e., within the jurisdiction of the Local Division Munich (...). Nothing more is required to establish the competence of the Court. Legal characterization of acts under substantive law is beyond the scope of the Rule 19 examination.

IPPT20250402, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Fujifilm v Kodak - IV
IPPT20250402, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Fujifilm v Kodak - III
Separation of proceedings ordered (R. 302 RoP) between national parts of European bundle patent ready for decision and the national part of the patent-in-suit concerning the United Kingdom, which is not ready for decision yet, following the decision of the European Court of Justice in re C-339/22 (BSH Hausgeräte)

IPPT20250402, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Fujifilm v Kodak - II

Patent revoked (Article 65 UPCA). Lack of inventive step . Admissible auxiliary requests in Reply to Statement of defence and counterclaim for revocation (R. 30 RoP, R. 263 RoP). Such consequential adjustments to the infringement action are covered by R. 30 RoP without the necessity to formally apply for leave to change the claim or amend the case in accordance with R. 263 RoP. […]. No jurisdiction of the UPC with regard to those national parts of UPCA member states which have already lapsed before 1 June 2023. The same applies to national parts of non-UPCA-member states. (Article 3(c) UPCA). It can be left open whether a lack of jurisdiction under Art. 3 (c) UPCA falls within the scope of R. 19 RoP. No novelty destroying public prior use (Article 54 EPC). Facts – that need to presented in Statement of Defence and Counterclaim for Revocation – are insufficient to substantiate public prior use. Allegations and documents show that before the relevant priority date such plates had been protected by an at least implicit confidentiality regime. No disclosure of feature 1.3.6 in WO ‘379: the reworking is not based on process conditions which the average person skilled in the art would be able to extract from the disclosure of the document but on specialist knowledge of one of its inventors. Therefore, even if it were accepted that the person skilled in the art would have sufficient reason to rework example 7 in order to study the properties of the result achieved thereby, it has not been submitted that the document itself discloses in sufficient details the conditions for reworking example 7. Lack of inventive step starting from EP’452 in combination with common knowledge (Article 56 EPC). The use of a particular means may be obvious even without a corresponding specific motivation if, by its nature, said means, as a general means to be considered for a plurality of applications, belongs to the general knowledge of the relevant skilled person, the use of the functionality in question is objectively appropriate in the context to be assessed and no special circumstances can be identified which make an application appear impossible, difficult or otherwise impractical from a technical point of view (cf. BGH, decision of 15 June 2021 – X ZR 58/19, GRUR 2021, 1277 mn. 47 – Führungsschienenanordnung). Lack of inventive step starting from EP’452 in combination with EP’968, JP’090 or EP’541. Lack of inventive step starting from JP’021. Lack of inventive step starting from EP 408 in conjunction with general common knowledge or, alternatively, in combination with other documents. No added matter when claim is construed properly: symbol “≤” is obvious erroneous in the light of the set of claims as granted and the patent specification. (Article 138(1)(c) EPC, Article 69 EPC). Partially fending off counterclaim for revocation –(Article 65(3) UPCA. R. 30 RoP) requires filing a proper request specifying the extent to which the patent-in-dispute shall be maintained in part (deviating opinion with regard to subclaims: Central Division, Paris seat, decision of 22 January 2025, UPC_CFI_310/2023, GRUR-RS 2025, 637 mn. 138). A separate defence of dependent claims as granted is not admissible in the case at hand. Claimant did not properly apply for an amendment of the patent-in-suit based on dependant claims or a combination thereof as new independent claim.

IPPT20250402, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Fujifilm v Kodak - I
Direct infringement of non-lapsed German part of European patent (Article 25 UPCA), revocation counterclaim dismissed (Article 65 UPCA). Amendment of patent and of request in infringement action (R. 30 RoP, R. 263 RoP, R. 265 RoP). No jurisdiction UPC over national parts of a European patent, which have already lapsed in a UPCA member stat or a non-UPCA-member state before 1 June 2023 (Article 3(c) UPCA, Article 32 UPCA). The Defendants’ objection against the UPC’s jurisdiction with regard to the lapsed national parts of the patent-in-suit is not precluded by R. 19.7 RoP or Art. 26 (1) Brussels Ia Reg., although Defendants did not base their preliminary objection on the lack of jurisdiction under Art. 3 (c) UPCA, but raised an objection insofar in the oral hearing only. Applicable aw: The substantive law to be applied to on the instant facts of the case is the UPCA as the attacked embodiments (SONORA XTRA-3 plates) had been marketed at least also after 1 June 2023 (IPPT20250311, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Hurom v NUC - I). Validity. Priority - no public prior use (Article 87 EPC): all essential elements of the invention must be directly and unambiguously apparent from the prior application.  Printing plate precursors of Defendants were protected by an at least implicit confidentiality regime. Novelty – reworking standard (article 54 EPC). Inventiveness – no incentive to recombine (Article 56 EPC). With regard to inventiveness, there is no motivation for the skilled person to recombine the micropore properties of the thirty examples disclosed in table 2 so as to arrive at a technical solution which is encompassed by the patent-in-suit. No added matter (Article 138(1)(c) EPC).  No private prior use in Germany in accordance with German law (Article 28 UPCA. § 12 German Patent Act. Defendants did not submit sufficient facts so as to establish that they had also made the final business decision within the Kodak Group to commercialize printing plates with the features of the claimed invention before the relevant priority date. 

IPPT20250402, UPC CFI, CD Paris, Suinno v Microsoft
Application for decision by default because of failure to provide the security for costs within the time limit specified by the Court rejected (R. 355 RoP). Court has the discretion but not the obligation, to issue a decisions by default, when a step is not taken within stated time limit. The Court may consider relevant that the evidentiary findings acquired in the proceedings at the time of the default does not allow for a sufficiently confident assessment of the merits of the claims put forward by the non-defaulting party.

IPPT20250401, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Total Semiconductors v Texas Instruments
Exchange of further written pleadings dismissed (R. 36 RoP). The party requesting to allow further briefs has to out in the application itself sufficient details. It should not not limit its submission to vague and general terms alone but set out in detail with reference to specific paragraphs of the briefs which points had been addressed so far and explains with a sufficient level of substantiation the grounds why a further brief is necessary in deviation from the general framework of R. 12 RoP.

IPPT20250401, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Mann+Hummel v Sotras
Withdrawal of action for interim measures. No decision on costs, 60% court fees refunded (R. 265 RoP)

IPPT20250401, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Headwater v Samsung
Extension of term by mutual request of the parties from 3 April 2025 until 8 April 2025 granted (R. 333 RoP).

IPPT20250401, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, Amycel
Application to re-establish the right to file Statement of Defence rejected for non-observance of due care (R. 23 RoP, R. 320 RoP). Given the circumstances, Defendant, and thus his counsel, had an obligation to take (pre-cautionary measures of) due care to avoid non-observance of the time-limit set by the Rules of Procedure. Consequently, the SoD submitted on 4 March 2025 shall not be considered. As the right to file the SoD is not re-established, a decision by default shall be rendered in the infringement action. The same applies to a relating counterclaim for revocation, if any.