UPC Court of First Instance - 2025 - 3rd Quarter
Print this pageIPPT20250930, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, InterDigital v Amazon
Confidentiality club granted (Rule. 262A RoP) to the Respondents for information and attachments marked as confidential in the application.
IPPT20250930, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Headwater v Samsung
Joint withdrawal of the counterclaim for revocation allowed. (Rule. 265 RoP)
IPPT20250926, UPC CFI, LD Dusseldorf, Labrador v bioMerieux
Order of summons for an open public oral hearing (R. 108 RoP, R. 115 RoP).
IPPT20250926, UPC LD Düsseldorf, Headwater v Samsung
Withdrawal of action by party consent (R. 265 RoP)
IPPT20250923, UPC CFI, CD Paris, IMI Hydronic v Belparts
Request to join proceedings not granted, parties invited to comment and reformulate the request within 10 days (Article 33 UPCA, Rule 340 RoP). Hearing the counterclaim for infringement and the infringement actions together - will still result in more than one action, as the revocation action and the counterclaim for revocation are not included in the request .A joinder cannot result in the referral of an action to another division of the Court of First Instance beyond the possibilities provided for referral of actions in Art. 33 UPCA . The exceptions regarding the hearing of infringement actions and revocation actions pursuant to Art. 33 (3), (4) UPCA, do not apply.
IPPT20250922, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Otec v Steros
Ex parte order for inspection and preservation of evidence granted. (Art. 60 UPCA, Rule. 194 (d), 196, 197, 199 RoP). Credible demonstration that the patent may be infringed. (Article 60 (1) UPCA). The product, as exhibited at the EMO Hannover trade fair, makes use of the technical teaching of the patent. All features of the patent are realized in the "DLyte PRO500 Automated Cell" product. The application is urgent (R. 194. 2 b), c), 197 R.P.). There exists a serious risk that the product will be removed from the exhibition grounds at short notice. Due to special market conditions, it would be almost impossible for the applicant to obtain evidence of the infringement of the of the patent. Expert appointed to carry out the measures with the assistance of a bailiff. (Rule 196.4, .5 RoP). An order of security would unreasonably delay the preservation of evidence and inspection, considering the short duration of the trade show.
IPPT20250918, UPC CFI LD Dusseldorf, Atlas Global v TP-Link
Application for stay of proceedings granted (Rule 295 RoP). Both parties agree to stay all associated proceedings against the defendant.
IPPT20250917, UPC CFI LD The Hague, Washtower v Wasombouw
As defendants indicated that service may be performed electronically using the email address of the registered representative […] electronic service of the final order is to proceed pursuant to R. 276.1 juncto R. 271.1.c RoP and Art. 19.1.b Service Regulation.
IPPT20250917, UPC CFI LD Paris, Merz v Viatris Sante
Request to order submission of shorter summary of objection granted (R.9 RoP). In light of the 30 page application for provisional measures, the 470 objection was excessive. A limit of 70 pages was set
IPPT20250917, UPC CFI LD Dusseldorf, InterDigital v Disney
Early decision taken to have joint hearing for infringement and revocation (R. 37.2 RoP and Art. 33(3) UPCA). In the interest of efficiency and to ensure uniform interpretation of the patent it was decided that bifurcation was not in the best interests of the parties
IPPT20250916, UPC CFI LD Mannheim, Huawei v MediaTek
Order to produce confidential information regarding licence agreements. (Rule 190. RoP, Article 59 UPCA ) - Claimant to submit confidential licence agreements with passages redacted insofar as the claimant does not refer to these passages for its factual allegations and legal argumentation. Further orders pursuant to confidential information to be issued (R. 262A RoP). There is no fear of any loss of secret information, since according to the procedure established in the CFI, the unedited versions of the respective pleadings will only be released after a provisional secrecy protection order has been issued that offers sufficient protection.
IPPT20250912, UPC CFI LD Mannheim, bellissa HAAS v Windhager
Patent valid and infringed Art. 25(a) UPCA.
It is irrelevant for direct patent infringement that the components are offered in a non-assembled state if the product is such that its components can be assembled in a simple manner at the place of use of the product without the addition of further objects. The offering or supplying of all components already constitutes direct patent infringement.
The individual sale of coordinated components constitutes direct infringement if the product consists of at least two identical, coordinated components which are designed to be assembled into the patent-protected product in accordance with the patent without the addition of further items. An injunction also covers such products. Offering (Art. 25(a) UPCA) Whether an act constitutes an offer depends on the explanatory value to be attributed to it, which is to be determined from the objective point of view of the relevant public. Embodiments advertised individually in close-up does not preclude an offer. It does not follow that the offer would be limited to the sale of individual lawn and design edges. It follows that several lawn and design edgings are offered for assembly by the customer. Emphasis that the variable lawn and design edges are easy to install and can be extended as required and offer individual design options are sufficient to explain that the products are not offered individually.
IPPT20250912, UPC CFI LD Düsseldorf, Trumpf v IPG Laser II
Subsequent requests for amendment of the patent rejected. (Rule 30(2) RoP). Application not sufficient to enable court’s to exercise discretion. Plaintiff's reasoning limited to general statements.The Plaintiff did not establish a connection between the amendments made in the auxiliary motions and specific arguments made by the defendant in the proceedings. The court was unable to assess whether the admission of the further auxiliary motions complies with the principles of proportionality, flexibility, fairness, and equity. Leave to file a further pleading dismissed. (Rule 36 RoP). In view of the lack of admission of the further auxiliary requests pursuant to, there is no basis for the desired introduction of coordinated requests in the infringement proceedings.
IPPT20250912, UPC CFI LD Düsseldorf, Trumpf v IPG Laser - I
Arguments raised in the counterclaim that do not relate to the counterclaim or application to amend the patent are to be disregarded (R. 9.2 RoP, R. 36 RoP). Even if an application for the admission of further pleadings pursuant to R. 36 RoP may be made until the conclusion of the written procedure, the court may take into account the timing of such an application in the written procedure.
IPPT20250912, UPC CFI LD Dusseldorf, Eyesmatch v Microsoft
Withdrawal of action by party consent (R. 265 RoP)
IPPT20250912, UPC CFI LD Mannheim, Total Semiconductor v Texas Instruments
Application for security for costs confirmed. (R. 158 RoP) . Request to review order rejected (R. 333 RoP) Leave to appeal refused. Costs incurred by the Defendants likely to reach the confirmed amount given that the proceedings at hand are complex. It is not apparent that the amount of the security would unreasonably hinder the Claimant in the enforcement of its patent. Since the request for security for costs is successful, the Defendants’ 2 and 3 request pursuant to R. 190 RoP is void of purpose.
IPPT20250911, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Huawei v MediaTek
Confidentiality request rejected insofar as protection is sought for the name of a witness (R.262A RoP). Request to expand confidentiality club for the current round of pleadings rejected due to impracticality as it would become difficult for persons involved to comply with confidentiality orders.
IPPT20250911, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, Washtower v Wasombouw
Preliminary injunction for direct infringement (Article 25 UPCA, Article 62 UPCA, R. 211 RoP), order to communicate information (Article 67 UPCA), recall (Article 64(2)(b) UPCA )and cost award (Article 69 UPCA). Patent more likely than not valid. No added matter (Article 123(2) EPC): Inventive step (Article 56 EPC) IClaim interpretation, equivalence and infringement (Article 69 EPC, Article 2 Protocol) A. Features 1.7-1.8: plate like support means for transmitting vertical forces. The claim recites that one or more plate-like means should support the carrier. It can therefore also be just one. […]. Test for equivalence: In the positive, finding of equivalent patent infringement always requires that the variant performs essentially the same function as the element recited in the claim, with essentially the same result. The same applies to the assumption that protection cannot extend to what is not new or inventive over the prior art. Legal certainty for third parties: Absent such indications, a third party can not genuinely believe that he/she can take advantage of the claimed invention, by simply using a non-metal strip to circumvent literal infringement. Necessity and balance of interest (Article 62(2) UPCA, R. 206(d) RoP. R. 211(3) RoP). The price difference is not sufficiently large to underpin Defendants’ claim that the markets are so separate that Applicants will not economically “feel” the continued sales by Defendants. Applicants acted without undue delay (R. 211(4) RoP): the delay was less than 2 months from the publication of the grant of the patent to start these proceedings, not counting some time for an out of Court settlement attempt by mail.
IPPT20250911, UPC CFI LD Dusseldorf, Ona Patents v Ekahau
Only 40% of court fees reimbursed as written pleadings are deemed to have been closed (R. 370.9(b)(ii) RoP). Although the written proceedings had not yet been formally closed, all regular pleadings foreseen in the Rules of Procedure had already been exchanged between the parties. Based on this, the judge rapporteur raised a lot of questions and requested further documentation on 1 August 2025. This order required an in-depth examination of the matter and is comparable to an R. 103 RoP order.
IPPT20250910, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Ona Patents v Ekahau
Clarification of confidentiality order of 9 September to include an explicit statement about being confidential of the information provided by the Claimant in its application dated 20 August 2025 (Article 58 UPCA, R. 262A RoP)
IPPT20250909, UPC CFI, LD München, PAPST v Ecovacs
No extension of deadlines for second defendant to lodge Preliminary objection (R. 19.1 RoP) and Statement of defence (R. 23 RoP, R. 9.3 RoP). The defendant does not claim that it needs the extension in order to prepare an adequate defence. Although the aspect of procedural standardisation is to be recognised, it does not carry as much weight.
IPPT20250909, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Ona Patents v Ekahau
Confidentiality regime (Article 58 UPCA, R. 262A RoP) for documents mostly related to third parties having confidentiality clauses and information submitted to the District Court of Munich I in the pending case for alleged patent infringement of EP 1 354 491 B1
IPPT20250909, UPC CFI, LD Milan, Oerlikon v Himson Engineering
Withdrawal of infringement and revocation proceedings by party consent (R. 265 RoP)
IPPT20250908, UPC CFI, LD Paris, Adobe v KEEEX
Extension and alignment of time limits of R.19 and R.23 RoP to 4 September 2025 for all respondents (R. 9.3 RoP).
IPPT20250908, UPC CFI, President, Global Oy v FraunHofer
Language of the proceedings shall be changed to the language in which the patent was granted, namely English (Article 49(5) UPCA, R. 323 RoP). Due consideration must also be given to the need for such entities to coordinate and communicate internally in view of their defence. This strategic coordination is necessarily affected if the proceedings are not conducted in their usual working language.
IPPT20250908, UPC CFI, CD Paris, Microsoft v Suinno
Confidential and privileged information concerning costs of legal representation pursuant to EU law (Article 58 UPCA, R. 152 RoP, R. 262A RoP, R. 287 RoP). Information concerning the number of hours spent on the case by the instructed representatives and the fees agreed upon between the parties must be considered confidential and information concerning the number of hours spent on the case by the instructed attorneys and the fees agreed upon between the parties falls within the scope of the attorney-client privilege provided by Rule 287 RoP.
IPPT20250908, UPC CFI, CD Munich, TCL v Corning
No extension of deadline by 2 weeks for filing the Reply to Defence to Revocation, including an Application to amend the patent because of tests being conducted (R. 9.3 RoP, R. 29(a) RoP)
IPPT20250905, UPC CFI, President, Renault v Avago
Language of the proceedings changed to the language in which the patent was granted, namely English Article 49(5) UPCA and R. 323 RoP). In the absence of any objections raised by the Claimant in the main proceedings and given the position of the Defendants, the Court expressly refers to the reasoning developed in the aforementioned order: IPPT20250703, UPC CFI, President, Avago v Renault
IPPT20250905, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Centripetal v Keysight
Defendant’s request rejected to stay proceedings because of pending opposition (oral hearing scheduled for 27 November 2025) (R. 295(a) RoP). The case is ripe for a full-fledged hearing on 9/10 October 2025 including the validity of the patent.
IPPT20250905, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Ona Patents v Ekahau
Withdrawal of action by party consent (R. 265 RoP)
IPPT20250905, UPC LD Milan, Edwards v Sintec
Settlement confirmed by the Court (R. 365.1 RoP)
IPPT20250905, UPC LD Düsseldorf, Ona Patents v Ekahau
Withdrawal of action by party consent (R. 265 RoP)
IPPT20250905, UPC CFI, LD Milan, Edwards v Sintec
Confirmation of a settlement (Art. 79 UPCA, R. 365.1 RoP). Certain parts shall be kept confidential at the request of the Parties. No reimbursement of Court fees in case of withdrawal of application for interim measures (R. 265 RoP). R. 370.9(b)(i) RoP is not applicable, either directly or analogously, to applications for interim measures.
IPPT20250904, UPC LD Munich, UERAN v Xiaomi
Request for predetermined time limits for not yet represented defendants accepted (R. 9.3 RoP, R. 23 RoP).The defendants 1-3 and 6-7 not yet represented by counsel would agree to also instruct counsel to represent them in the present proceedings and to accept the requested time limit regime regardless of the date of actual service.
IPPT20250904, UPC LD Munich, Belparts v IMI Hydronic
Parallel proceedings not heard together (R. 302.3 RoP). Regardless of the consent voiced by IMI […] The prerequisite that the two proceedings are pending 'before the same local or regional division or central division' is not met, since the counterclaim for infringement is pending with a different division to the infringement action
IPPT20250904, UPC LD Mannheim, Huawei v MediaTek
Security for costs regarding Claimant residing in China (Art. 69 (4) UPCA, R. 158.1 RoP). The Local Division Mannheim has so far not been able to successfully serve a judicial document in the People's Republic of China (where Claimant resides) in any of the many proceedings pending before it, in particular in any SEP proceedings. It is therefore to be feared that enforcement against assets located there will be all the more difficult. Only half the requested amount of the upper limit (i.e., € 100.000) is set as security for the second defendant, since it is still unclear to what extent the first defendant will defend itself with a counterclaim for annulment, while a division of the upper limit between the parties […] is to be made.
IPPT20250904, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Ecovacs Robotics v Roborock
Detailed ex parte order to preserve evidence and inspect premises (Article 60 UPCA, R. 194.2a RoP, R. 196 RoP, R. 197 RoP, R. 199 RoP). Even an imminent infringement in Germany is sufficient to establish the local jurisdiction of the German Local Divisions (Article 32(1)(c) UPCA, Article 33(1)(a) UPCA). In view of the circumstances of the case […] it is possible that the contested embodiments will be exhibited at IFA 2025 and that they will make use of the technical teaching of the patent in suit. The applicant, who is the owner of the patent application and has standing to sue, has provided a comprehensible explanation, based on an expert statement (Exhibit JD 10) and various product documents (Exhibits JD 7 to 8, Exhibits JD 11 to 14), as to why it assumes that all features of the patent application are realised in the contested embodiments. The order was to be issued ex parte pursuant to R. 192.3, 197 RoP. Otherwise, there would be a demonstrable risk that evidence would be destroyed or would no longer be available for other reasons (R. 197.1 Alt. 2 RoP).
IPPT20250904, UPC CFI, CD Milan, Gilead Sciences v AMMS
Inadmissible application for default judgement (R. 355.1(a) RoP). According to Rule 271.6, the statement of revocation is deemed to have been validly served to the defendant when the letter containing the statement of revocation and the unique access code was received by the patent representative. So, service was completed on 7 July 2025. The defendant, therefore, has until 8 September 2025 to file a statement of defense in the proceedings.
IPPT20250903, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, HP v Zuhai and Rentmeister
Preliminary injunction and other provisional measures for direct patent infringement (Article 25 UPCA, R. 209 RoP). If a defendant, upon invitation, fails to lodge an objection to an application for provisional measures the case can be decided by means of a regular order (R. 206 RoP, R. 209.1(a) RoP, R. 355.1(a) RoP). In a situation like this, a decision by default (R. 355.1(a) RoP) is not something to be considered for several reasons. The fact that the Applicant has, in addition to its regular motions, also requested a decision by default does not prevent a regular order from being issued. Pursuant to Art. 76(1) UPCA, the Court shall decide in accordance with the requests submitted by the parties and shall not award more than is requested. The present order falls within this framework.
IPPT20250902, UPC CFI, RD Nordic-Baltic, Edwards v Meril
Requests for rectification of decision on costs (Article 69(2) UPCA) dismissed. No obvious slip in decision of 21 July 2025 (R. 353 RoP). The decision – including items XII) and XIV) in its operative part – has the effect that the Claimant shall bear the remaining 25 % of its reasonable and proportionate costs in the counterclaim(s) for revocation and that the Defendants shall bear all its own costs. Neither the UPCA nor the Rules of Procedure prevents such an allocation of costs.
IPPT20250902, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Jinko v Longi
Proceedings stayed on joint application due to ongoing settlement negotiations (R. 295(d) RoP). If the proceedings resume, the claimant has a fresh two-month deadline for the reply in the infringement procedure and the defence to the counterclaim for revocation (R. 23 RoP)
IPPT20250902, UPC CFI, LD Dusseldorf, Occlutech v Lepu Medical
Confidentiality club regime regarding information submitted by defendants in proceedings seeking interim measures (R. 206 RoP, R. 262A RoP)
IPPT20250901, UPC LD Munich, KNAPP v Becton Dickinson
Extension of time limit for Defence to the Counterclaim for revocation and Reply to the Statement of defence (R. 29(a) RoP). Not as agreed between the parties (9 September 2025) but only until 5 September, to avoid a conflict with the preparation of the interim hearing.
IPPT20250901, UPC CD Paris, Seoul Viosys v Emporia
Preliminary objection rejected in revocation action, claiming lack of jurisdiction because claimant in this revocation action is a straw company and effectively the same party as in previous proceedings regarding the same patent before the LD Düsseldorf (R. 19 RoP, R. 20 RoP, Article 33(4) UPCA). Article 33(4) UPCA, second sentence, is not a provision on lis pendens, but rather a rule on derogatory jurisdiction that overrides the general competence of the central division for declaration of non-infringement actions and revocation actions. It grants jurisdiction to the local division previously seized to hear a case between the same parties concerning the same patent. EU law, abuse of right and “straw companies” (Article 24 UPCA). European Union law does not specifically provide for an institution corresponding to contractual simulation or explicitly regulate “straw companies”, but it does include a general principle of the prohibition of abuse of rights. Insufficient evidence that the claimant for invalidity is a straw company. The fact that the two companies resorted to substantially overlapping defence strategies, including having the same exhibits, does not mean that they are not conducting autonomous business activities or pursuing their own interests, even if, in this case, those interests converge in challenging the patent claimed by the applicant. The UPC framework does not exclude that a patent may be attacked by different subjects, even if linked by organizational ties or commercial relationships, and by the means of different claims, even if structured in the same grounds of invalidity.
IPPT20290829, UPC LD Mannheim, Faro v PMT
Proceedings are closed: no need to adjudicate (R. 360 RoP) because of settlement with the first defendant (Article 76(1) UPCA) and cease-and-desist undertaking by the second defendant. Costs of the proceedings between the claimant and the second defendant to be borne by the defendant (Article 69 UPCA). By submitting a cease-and-desist declaration and providing zero information, the defendant has placed itself in the losing position. Equity does not require a different allocation of costs. No formal warning letter was required because the defendant was already aware of the infringement allegations which were explained to its employees.
IPPT20250829, UPC LD The Hague, Cilag v RiVOLUTION
Application for provisional measures dismissed for unreasonable delay (R. 211.4 RoP). Cilag waited almost three months, until 6 February 2025, before sending a letter to Rivolution. Cilag also did not take action immediately [...] in a letter to Rivolution of 26 March 2026 (in reply to Rivolution’s response of 20 February 2025). It then took until the end of April, 29 April 2025. The tender that Applicant claims to give rise to new urgency was already known about a year prior, which means that this fact cannot revive urgency. LD The Hague competent to hear infringement claim (Article 33.1 UPCA). The panel doubts whether the UPCA should be interpreted such that, in case of a unitary patent, all divisions of the court are then also competent to hear the case, irrespective of the internal distribution of competences of the court provided by Art. 33.1 UPCA. This would make Art. 33.1 UPCA effectively meaningless for cases relating to unitary patents. Cilag substantiated in a sufficiently plausible way that the asserted imminent/threatened infringement is also directed to customers in the Netherlands. The LD The Hague therefore is competent to hear the application pursuant to Art. 7(2) BR and Art. 33.1(a) UPCA. Applicant has standing to sue (Article 47 UPCA). Pursuant to R. 8.4 RoP, the person shown in the Register for unitary patent protection as the proprietor of the patent shall be treated as such. Contrary to what is explicitly mentioned for bundle patents (in R. 8.5 (c) RoP), this is not said to be a rebuttable presumption.
IPPT20250829, UPC LD Dusseldorf, Wonderland v Cybex
Application for leave to amend the claim denied (R. 263 RoP). The fact that the Claimant seeks to claim infringement by equivalence does not constitute an amendment of the case. Extending the equivalence argument to features 1.9 and 1.10 does not alter the nature or scope of the dispute. The equivalence argument remains based on the same patent and is directed against the same products, namely the challenged strollers having swivel locking devices. Other restrictions on raising new arguments – with regard to R. 13 RoP and R. 9.2 RoP – are not subject of the application and will therefore have to be decided at a later date.
IPPT20250829, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, City Glass v Maars
Patent valid (Article 65 UPCA) but not infringed (Article 25 UPCA, Article 69 EPC). The allegedly infringing products do not meet features 1.4 and 1.6 as interpreted above. […]. It is not necessary to decide on equivalent infringement of feature 1.4 because also feature 1.6 is not present in the Horizon products.
IPPT20290828, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Faro v PMT
No reimbursement of Court fees in case of withdrawal of application for interim measures (R. 265 RoP). (R. 370.9(b)(i) RoP) is not applicable, either directly or analogously, to applications for interim measures. According to its wording, the provision refers only to actions. Furthermore, the procedural stages referred to in R. 370. 9(b) VerfO are not applicable in proceedings concerning applications for interim measures. In particular, oral hearings do not take place in every case. Furthermore, the court fee for applications for interim measures is already significantly reduced compared to that for legal actions. Against this background, no further reductions are provided for or required.
IPPT20290827, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Decathlon v OWIM
Part of Rejoinder to the application to amend the patent which contains a summary of the parties’ arguments regarding the validity/invalidity of the patent-in-suit disregarded. The Rejoinder shall be limited to matters raised in the Reply (R. 9.3 RoP, R. 32.3 RoP)
IPPT20250826, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Shangrao v LONGi
Proceedings stayed on joint application due to ongoing settlement negotiations (R. 295(d) RoP). The time limit for submitting a Statement of defence (and a Counterclaim for revocation) pursuant to Rule 23 RoP is extended to full five months (R. 296.3 RoP)
IPPT20250826, UPC CFI, LD Paris, Sun Patent Trust v Vivo Mobile
Extension for filing a Preliminary Objection (PO) and lodging the Statement of Defense (SoD) following Order establishing confidentiality club regime by order of 31 July 2025,but strictly limited to three weeks (nearly corresponding to the period between 31 July 2025 to the date of the present order) (R. 19 RoP, R. 23 RoP. R. 262A RoP)
IPPT20250826, UPC CFI, LD Munich, NEC V TCL
Access to register granted to law firm (R. 262 RoP). The Applicant shall be granted access to the written pleadings and evidence, whereby access shall be restricted to the redacted versions of the written pleadings for reasons of confidentiality and whereby personal data shall be redacted. However, insofar as the Applicant also listed orders of the Court and notifications from the CMS in its request, this is not successful. These are not subject to R. 262.1(b) RoP.
IPPT20250826, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Huawei v MediaTek
Plaintiff ordered to provide € 150.000 security for the costs of the legal dispute and other costs (R. 158.1 RoP). Sufficient likelihood that any decision by the UPC on costs in favour of the second defendant could only be enforced with disproportionate difficulty against company based in the People's Republic of China.
IPPT20250826, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Hologic v Siemens
Uncontested determination of confidential information for confidentiality club regime, including information regarding the design, components and the functioning of the attacked embodiments (R. 262A RoP., Article 58 UPCA)
IPPT20250825, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Qualcomm v NST
Preliminary objection rejected (R. 19 RoP). Lodged within one month of service, because, in the present case, the Statement of claim is deemed to have been served on the Defendants on the tenth day following posting, i.e. between 25 and 30 March 2024, in accordance with Rule 271.6 (b) RoP. Unfounded: the objections to the effectiveness of an opt-out or its withdrawal should be limited. Thus, the Defendant, who asserts the invalidity of a withdrawal of an opt-out in a Preliminary objection pursuant to Rule 19.1(a) RoP, can only object that the formal requirements of Rule 5.3 and 5.7 RoP have not been complied with, that the withdrawal has not been entered in the register or that the requirements of Rule 5.8 RoP are met. In particular, a mandate, a power of representation or any other authority for a representative acting under Rule 5.3 (b) (i) RoP is not required for an effective opt-out or its withdrawal. Unlike paragraph (ii), Rule 5.3 (b) (i) RoP does not require a mandate or any other substantive legal authority to represent.
IPPT20250825, UPC CFI, LD Hamburg, MED-EL v Nurotron
A lawyer authorised to represent a party in a proceeding on provisional measures is not automatically authorised to represent the same party in a subsequent infringement action concerning the same patent (Article 48(1) UPCA, R. 8.1 RoP, even if there is a link between the two proceedings (cf. e.g. Article 32.2 UPCA, Rule 213 RoP). Hence, the link between the proceedings in this case is different from the one assessed by LD Mannheim in case UPC CFI 445/2025, where it was held that the representative in the main proceeding (an infringement action) could be served an application that was inextricably linked to that main proceeding, even if the power of attorney was limited in this respect. Since Defendant 1 has its statutory seat, central administration and principal place of business outside the territory of the contracting member states of the UPCA, service shall be done in accordance with Rule 274 RoP.
IPPT20250822, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Brita v Aquashield
Patent maintained in amended form (Article 65 UPCA). Indirect infringement (Article 26 UPCA); No exhaustion (Article 29 UPCA). When plaintiff defends the contested disputed patent only to a limited extent in accordance with the respective sets of claims (Article 65(3) UPCA), there is no need to investigate whether subordinate claims of the contested patent in the registered version are to be declared partially invalid and, if necessary, upheld in combination with uncontested (sub)claims, since the court must decide in accordance with the parties' submissions (Article 76(1) UPCA). Exhaustion of patent rights in case of use of the product for its intended purpose, to sell it to third parties or to offer it to third parties for one of these purposes (Article 29 UPCA). The assumption of exhaustion fails because the filter cartridge offered and distributed by the plaintiff does not itself have the features of a filter cartridge according to claim 1 as amended in auxiliary request 16. If an embodiment that indirectly infringes the patent can also be used without infringing the patent (Article 26 UPCA) only a limited prohibition is justified, which ensures that, on the one hand, economic trade in the contested object outside the scope of the property right remains unaffected and, on the other hand, the direct patent-infringing use by the customer is excluded with sufficient certainty.
IPPT20250821, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Huawei v MediaTek
Confidentiality club regime for information concerning licence agreements and negotiations between the parties, which covers the information as such, also in further pleadings or annexes (R. 262A RoP.)
IPPT20250821, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, HL Display v Black Sheep
Application to deposit physical objects dismissed (R. 170.1(c) RoP)). No explanation was given why the exhibits could not have been filed earlier, notably together with its statement of defence. The request to deposit the objects is therefore rejected.
IPPT20250821, UPC CFI, LD Hamburg, Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft v HMD Global
Extension of deadline for Statement of defence rejected (R. 23 RoP). The rapporteur suggests that the parties agree in advance on the confidentiality of technical and non-technical information that may be submitted in the Statement of defence, if necessary, so that only an application under R. 262.2 RoP is required, but not an application under R. 262A RoP.
IPPT20250822, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Tridonic v CUPOWER
IPPT20250821, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Tridonic v Inventronics
Against the backdrop of ongoing settlement talks, the proceedings are suspended at the joint request of both parties until resumed at the request of one of the parties (R. 295(d) RoP, R. 296.2 RoP).
IPPT20250821, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Hartmann Packaging v Omni-Pac
Closure of the interim procedure, instructions for oral hearing (R. 105.5 RoP, R. 110.1 RoP): skilled person, claim features, table for (provisional) damages, claimant should prepare to explain in the oral proceedings, based on its understanding of the technical teaching protected by the contested patent, […], parties are instructed to upload to the CMS any sketches or documents to which they may wish to refer for clarification during the oral hearing but which have not yet been submitted to the file.
IPPT20250821, UPC CFI, CD Paris, Kinexon v Ballinno
Security deposit for legal costs released with consent of parties (R. 158 RoP). R. 352.2 RoP, applied by analogy.
IPPT20250820, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Centripetal v Keysight
Panel confirms dismissal of request for further written pleadings (R. 36 RoP), (R. 36 RoP)
IPPT20250820, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Occlutech v Lepu Medical
Request for allocating a technically qualified judge in summary proceedings (Article 8(5) UPCA, R. 34.1 RoP, Article 62 UPCA, R. 211.2 RoP). The respondents have lodged an objection to the application for interim measures. In their statement of grounds for objection, they question not only the infringement of the patent in dispute, but also its legal validity.
IPPT20250819, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Solvay
Separation of proceedings at the court’s initiative prior to Statement of defence (R. 303.2 RoP,). While service on defendants 1 and 2 was effected on 3 June 2025, service on defendants 3 and 4 has not yet been effected. For the defendants 1 and 2, the deadline for the SoD expires on 3 September 2025, while the deadline for defendants 3 and 4 has not even begun to run yet. It is unreasonable to expect the claimant to wait for service on defendants 3 and 4 while the proceedings against defendants 1 and 2 can continue.
IPPT20250819, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Wilus v Asustek
An extension of one week for lodging Statement of defence because of confidentiality regime request is sufficient (R. 23 RoP, R. 262A RoP). A further extension of the time period is out of question taking the Defendants’ 2 to 6 behaviour into account. If the unredacted version played such an important role, they should have raised this immediately after service of the statement of claim in order to avoid a delay in the proceedings.
IPPT20250819, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, Adeia v Disney
Deadline extension due to late filed exhibits for filing claimant’s rejoinder to defendant’s reply to the defence in the counter claim for revocation as well as claimant’s reply to defendant’s defence in the application to amend, begin on 5 August 2025. (R. 29 RoP)
IPPT20250819, UPC CFI, LD Brussels, OrthoApnea
Rectification of obvious calculation error in cost decision of 25 July 2025 (R. 353 RoP). The Court cannot, in the context of a R. 353 RoP procedure, reconsider the grounds for its decision. The time limits set out in R 221 (1) RoP are not adjusted (in the sense of suspended) by the present Correction Order (or request for such) and the Cost Decision itself remains decisive.
IPPT20250818, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, Genevant v Moderna
Panel review confirming of PO order 23 May 2025 (R. 333 RoP, R. 20 RoP). Jurisdiction over Moderna Spain based on both Art. 7(2) and Art. 8(1) BR in the PO Order and for Norway on the corresponding articles of the revised Convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial. For establishing international jurisdiction, it is sufficient for the Claimants to allege in a substantiated way either that Moderna Spain and Moderna Norway infringe the same patents (one of which is a bundle patent, the other has unitary effect) with the allegedly infringing product “Spikevax” (the same product) in their home countries (the same territory) collectively with Moderna Netherlands within the meaning of art. 8 BR / 6(1) Lugano Convention), or alternatively that these entities (threaten to) infringe the same patent with unitary effect or (national leg of) a European patent with the same product in UPC territory (Art. 7(2)BR/5(3) Lugano Convention). It is then for the court to determine whether the alleged infringement is plausible to establish jurisdiction.
IPPT20250818, UPC CFI, President, OPPO v Innovative Sonic
Language of the proceedings at the request of defendants changed from German to English, the language in which the patent was granted (R. 323 RoP, Article 49(5) UPCA). For the judge rapporteur to decide whether the oral hearing may be held in German as an alternative. Considering the additional work and potential difficulties incurred by continuing with the case management in English and preparing for the oral phase in another language, this possibility should preferably be discussed with the Judge-rapporteur rather than being decided at this stage.
IPPT20250815, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, HL Display v Black Sheep
Order following interim conference, rescheduling hearing date and setting the value of the dispute at € 500.000 (R. 105.5 RoP).
IPPT20250815, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, AdvanSix v Troy Chemical
Stay of proceedings upon mutual request until 13 February 2026 (R. 295(d) RoP).
IPPT20250814, UPC CFI, LD Hamburg, Dyson v Dreame
Preliminary injunction (Article 62 UPCA, R. 211 RoP). International jurisdiction UPC including Spain (for Defendants 2 and 3). UPC has international jurisdiction with respect to Defendants 2) and 3) as they are domiciled in Germany (Article 4(1) BR). This extends to the territories of the Contracting Member States of the UPCA for which the European patent is in effect (including Spain). With respect to Defendants 1) and 3) the UPC has also jurisdiction to decide upon the infringement as far as it relates to acts infringing the Spanish national part of the patent-in-suit. The UPC has international jurisdiction for all patent infringements committed in a UPC member state, regardless of the Defendant's place of residence (Article 7(2) BR).The jurisdiction granted by Art. 7 (2) BR [Defendant 1] is not limited to the Member State as according to Art. 34 UPCA Decisions of the Court shall cover, in the case of a European patent, the territory of those Contracting Member States for which the European patent is in effect. The international jurisdiction with respect to Defendant 4) follows Art. 8(1) BR. No plausible allegation of infringing acts by Defendants 2 and 4 in Spain. the Applicant did not provide any reliable facts that Defendant 2) is or was involved in any marketing of the attacked embodiments in Spain. The same applies to Defendant 4). Defendant 3) is subject to the universal jurisdiction of the UPC at its seat, including alleged infringing acts with respect to the Spanish national part of the patent in suit. As Authorized Representative” pursuant to the EU regulations 2023/988/EU on general product safety (GPSR) and 2019/1020/EU on market surveillance and compliance of products, Defendants 3 is an essential party in the distribution in the EU. Without an authorized representative in the EU, Defendant 1) is not legally able to sale the attacked embodiments in the EU. Defendant 3 serves as an anchor defendant for the international jurisdiction with respect of Defendant 1) regarding the Spanish national part of the patent, if the criteria of Art. 8 (1) BR are met. Defendants 1, 2 and 3 are infringers in the UPCA countries and Spain (Defendant 1) or only in the UPCA countries (Defendants 2 and 4) (Article 25 UPCA, Article 62 UPCA). Defendant 1) is liable for the patent infringement in the UPCA countries and in Spain as it is the producer and website operator in European countries and thereby inter alia offering the products […]. Defendant 2) is liable as the Germany based “Official Distributor of Dreame” and seller. Its liability is limited to UPCA countries as the Court has no jurisdiction regarding the infringement of the Spanish national part of the patent in suit. The same applies to Defendant 4), who is the Swedish affiliate to Defendant 1) and runs the country specific website www.se.dreamtech.com as well as a retail store in Stockholm. As authorized representative Defendant 3 is an intermediary whose services are essential for the distribution of the attacked embodiments in the European Union, including Spain (Article 62 UPCA, Article 9(1)(a) Enforcement directive).
IPPT20250814, UPC CFI, LD Hamburg, Ballinno v UEFA
The security for procedural costs in the amount of EUR 56.000,- provided by Ballinno B.V. is to be released to the Defendants. Parties can use the security provided under R. 158 RoP as means to settle a pending application to cost decision, R. 150 RoP, in analogy to R. 265 RoP.
IPPT20250814, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Dolby v Beko
Plaintiff may submit a written statement on the defendants’ FRAND objection (R. 36 RoP)
IPPT20250813, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, Winnow v Orbisk
Patent partially revoked (Article 65 UPCA); not infringed (Article 25 UPCA). Lack of inventive step (Article 56 EPC) because error-cleaning steps suggested by common general knowledge, as mentioned above, are so basic that any Skilled Person would perform them, regardless of how unreliable they think the data is. In any case, the Court finds that it is clear from the video, and even more so from its application in a live commercial kitchen environment, that the captured weights will inevitably contain errors, such as when a bin is changed or when users rest their hands, plates or pans on the scale. If the counter claimant seeks revocation of claims not asserted against it, and those claims are upheld, a compensation of costs is in order (Article 69 UPCA, R. 152 RoP).
IPPT20250813, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, Genevant v Moderna
Limited extension for filing Reply to statement of defence and Statement of defence to counterclaim for revocation (R. 9.3 RoP, R. 29(a) RoP, R. 262A RoP). In view of the circumstances of this case, the date of the uploading of the agreement of the party regarding a confidentiality club, shall be taken as the start date for the two month time period. A limited extension for filing the Reply/SoDCfR will thus be granted until 24 September 2025. A further extension until 4 October 2025 as requested, is not justified.
IPPT20250812, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Headwater Research v Samsung
At the request of both parties, the language of the proceedings will be changed from German to English, the language of the patent ((Article 49(3) UPCA, R. 321 RoP).
IPPT20250812, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, American Wave Machine v Surftown
Confidentiality club order (R. 262A RoP) indicating authorised person and indicating as confidential information the information relating to technical details of the challenged embodiment as highlighted in grey in the statements of defence and the counterclaims for revocation of Defendants […].
IPPT20250811, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Syntorr v Arthrex
According to Rule 158(1) RoP, Claimant’s insurance policy is no adequate security. Claimant to provide adequate security for costs (€ 2 million) by deposit or bank guarantee.
IPPT20250808, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Sunstar v CeraCon
Panel confirmation of order dismissing leave to amend counterclaim for revocation by introducing new prior art (R. 263 RoP, R. 333 RoP). Same principles of weighing of interests and discretion apply when the amendment concerns a counterclaim for revocation. On a regular basis, the interest of the claimant of an infringement action and the interest of the defendant of a counterclaim for revocation outweigh the interest of the defendant of the infringement action and claimant of the counterclaim for revocation in a situation where the additional prior art document that is introduced after or only shortly before the submission of the defence to the counterclaim for revocation is easy to be found in an usual (electronic) prior art search when using a proper search string, regardless of whether the failure to include such document in the counterclaim for revocation constitutes negligence. Taking all circumstances into account, the panel is not convinced that there was reasonable diligence on the Claimant CCR’s side (R. 263.2(a) RoP)
IPPT20250806, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, NUC v Hurom
Confidential attorney-client-privileged information in cost proceedings (R. 262A RoP). The breakdown of hours worked between the lawyers involved is confidential information belonging to both the lawyers and their client and is also subject to the attorney-client-privilege. The distribution of hours could allow conclusions to be drawn about the working methods and, in some circumstances, the importance attached to the case. Confidential information of the UPC representatives of a party to the proceedings is not excluded from protection under R. 262A RoP. Restricting access to lawyers alone is not permitted under R. 262A.6 RoP without the consent of the party concerned. Taking the circumstances of the individual case and the interests of the parties involved into account once again, restricting access to specific natural persons of Respondents named in advance is not justified either. Given the restricted purpose for which the information is to be used, the Respondents are obliged anyway not to disclose the information to persons within their organization who do not need it for the purpose of the cost proceedings.
IPPT20250806, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Dish v AYLO
No separate proceedings for cost decision for costs incurred in connection with the application for, opposition to or defence against procedural orders ( Rules 150 RoP), including orders for security for costs pursuant to R. 158 RoP. Instead, these costs will be assessed as part of the total costs of the proceedings in the cost assessment proceedings pursuant to R. 150 RoP following the decision on the merits.
IPPT20250806, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Sanofi v Amgen
Stay of infringement action and counterclaim for revocation regarding EP 857 (R. 295(m) RoP) pending the outcome of the appeal against the first instance decision of the Local Division Düsseldorf in the infringement proceedings regarding patent EP 3 536 712 (“EP712”). The question of infringement of EP 857 involves the same factual and legal questions as the case UPC_CFI_505/2024 in relation to EP 712. Under these circumstances, the Court finds that the stay of the proceedings is in accordance with the requirements of proper administration of justice. […]. If the appeal is successful, it is reasonable and fair that the Claimants have a chance to present new legal arguments and that the Defendants still have the stage of first instance to demonstrate why this case should be approached differently [...]. In the view of efficiency the stay also effects the counterclaim for revocation.
IPPT20250806, UPC CFI, CD Milan, Bodycap v EPO
No annulment of decision of the EPO to reject a request for unitary effect because of an incorrect name and postal address submitted by a third party on behalf of the proprietors (R. 97.4 RoP). The fact that the third party was not aware of the change in address or the irregularity does not excuse the irregularity. The one month time limit stipulated by Rule 7.3 RPU already shows enough flexibility for the legal system. Allowing any extensions to this time frame would contradict legal certainty.
IPPT20250805, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Wonderland Nurserygoods v Cybex
Decision not to bifurcate taken before closure of written procedure (Article 33(3) UPCA, R. 37.2 RoP).
IPPT20250805, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, 10x Genomics v Curio Bioscience
Confidentiality regime (Rule 262A RoP) for certain information in Defendant’s Application for a cost decision dated 16 July 2025 IPPT20250806_UPC_CD_Milan_Bodycap_v_EPO.pdf
IPPT20250805, UPC CFI, LD Dusseldorf, igus v Whale Technology
Patent infringed (Article 25 UPCA); Default judgement issued against the defendant, upon failure to file a Statement of Defence. (Article 37 UPCS , Rule 355 RoP). It is irrelevant that the Rules of Procedure do not expressly provide for the issuance of a default judgment for this type of default, due to the explicit mention of the issuance of a default decision in the UPC Statute, which takes precedence over the Rules of Procedure. In the statement of claim, the plaintiff conclusively argues that the contested embodiment literally implements all features of claim 1 of the contested patent.
IPPT20250804, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Imusyn v BAG Diagnostics
Request to assign a technically qualified judge in summary proceedings (Article 8(5) UPCA, R. 34 RoP, R. 211 RoP). Although the appointment of a technically qualified judge ex officio is only mentioned in R. 34 RoP and thus in the provisions governing the main proceedings, Art. 8(5) sentence 2 UPCA generally grants the panel, and thus also in summary proceedings, the right to call in such a judge on its own initiative after hearing the parties if it deems this appropriate.
IPPT20250804, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, Advanced Brain Monitoring v Philips
No need to amend case because of amended B2 version of European Patent (R. 263 RoP). Article 68 EPC clarifies that from the outset the patent shall be deemed not to have had the effects specified in Art. 64 and Art. 67 EPC to the extent that the patent is limited. Therefore, already on the date on which the SoC was filed, the B1 version of the patent no longer existed and had been replaced by the B2 version with retroactive active effect. Thus, the B2 text is deemed to exist/be valid from the date on which the patent was first granted.
IPPT20250804, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Hurom v NUC
Additional two weeks extension, because of summer vacation period, of the time period for comments on claimant’s request for imposition of a penalty payment to enforce the Defendant’s obligation to provide information (R. 9.3(a) RoP, Article 67 UPCA) .
IPPT20250804, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, Genevant v Moderna
Confirmation of confidentiality regime agreed by the parties (Rule 262A RoP).
IPPT20250804, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, CUP&CINO v Alpina Coffee
Decision not to bifurcate taken before closure of written procedure (Article 33(3) UPCA, R. 37.2 RoP).
IPPT20250801, UPC CFI, LD Paris, NJ Diffusion v Gisela Mayer
Infringement claim rejected (Article 25 UPCA). Infringement action admissible. Explanation of proposed claim interpretation in the Statement of claim only required “where appropriate”(R. 13.1(n) RoP). In the present case, the applicant considered that the interpretation of the terms of the contested claims was not necessary because it considered that those terms had no particular meaning in the technical field of hairpieces that differed from their common meaning and that the patent description did not give them any special meaning either. Claim scope imited to only the claimed edge-tot-edge method (Article 69 EPC). The patent itself describes two distinct modes of implementation (0024 and 0028), and a person skilled in the art will understand in the context of the patent that ‘edge to edge’ is distinct from ‘superimposition’. It is irrelevant that the descriptive part still refers to the superimposed embodiment; what matters is the scope of protection as defined by the claims, which are expressly limited to ‘edge to edge’. The Court also notes that the addition of the words ‘placed edge to edge’ in claim 1 should have led, at the time of grant of the patent, to the removal of the ‘superimposed’ embodiment of the invention mentioned in the description, as this embodiment does not fall within the scope of protection of the patent as finally claimed. No late filed claim of infringement by equivalence in Statement of reply (R. 29 RoP) as this claim does not change the nature of the claimant's procedural strategy, which merely adapts it in light of the arguments put forward by GM in its defence, and the defendant was able to respond to it in its rejoinder. No equivalency in the absence of the same function (Article 2, Interpretation Protocol). Appropriate to first answer a question that is the lowest common denominator and constitutes the first criterion for examining equivalence: Do the modified (or substitute) means essentially fulfil the same function to achieve essentially the same effect?. Claim against bankruptcy receiver of claimant and intervening party (R. 313 RoP) for payment of provisional costs inadmissible under French law (Article 24 UPCA, R. 8 RoP, R. 311 RoP). That the bodies responsible for the collective proceedings have chosen to continue the proceedings (paragraph 18 of GM's final statement of defence), does not in any way demonstrate the existence of fault. The French Court of Cassation has repeatedly stated that the liability of the bodies involved in collective proceedings is a special liability regime requiring proof of gross and independent negligence. Such fault is characterised, for example, if the insolvency practitioner decides to continue the proceedings when the company's situation is irretrievably compromised and does not seek the cessation of the company's activities or its liquidation
IPPT20250801, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, American Wave v Surftown
Confidentiality club regime (Rule 262A RoP). Claimant to explain the extent to which […] requires access to the information classified as confidential in his role as “external advisor in the underlying proceedings’”
IPPT20250801, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Huawei v MediaTek
Confidentiality ordered (R. 262A RoP) of text passages […] concerning the licence negotiations between the parties (R. 190 RoP)
IPPT20250801, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, Abbott v Menarini
No postponement of scheduled oral hearing in provisional measures proceedings, further instructions (R. 9.3 RoP, R. 209.1(b) RoP). Due to the inherent urgency of the hearing of an application for interim measures, a postponement of the hearing can only be considered in very special circumstances. No special circumstances are present or asserted by Defendants.
IPPT20250801, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Centripetal v Keysight
Request for further written pleadings dismissed (R. 36 RoP)
IPPT20250801, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Powermat v Anker Innovations
Decision on request of defendants to stay infringement action postponed until after the oral hearing (R. 295 RoP). FRAND counterclaim.
IPPT20250801, UPC CFI, LD Hamburg, Alexion Pharmaceuticals v Samsung Bioepsis - II
IPPT20250801, UPC CFI, LD Hamburg, Alexion Pharmaceuticals v Samsung Bioepsis - I
Cost decision (R. 151 RoP). With regard to the Defendants’ claim for reimbursement of litigation fees, in the court's view, the litigation fees for the two lawyers and patent attorneys are justified. There is no need to provide further proof of costs. In contrast to this, the Defendant has failed to provide a comprehensible explanation as to why it was appropriate and necessary for two English solicitors to be involved in the present proceedings. On the contrary, the costs incurred for the private expert […] are also eligible for reimbursement. Insofar as the Applicant also objects to the travel expenses claimed on the grounds that the patent attorneys arrived two days before the oral hearing, this seems reasonable.
IPPT20250801, UPC CFI, LD Dusseldorf, Ona Patents v Google Ireland
IPPT20250801, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Ona Patents v Apple
Order regarding supplementary presentations and the submission of documents are necessary in the written procedure (R. 9.1 RoP, R. 35 RoP)
IPPT20250801, UPC, CFI, LD Munich, Headwater v Samsung
Patent revoked because claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 10 and 35 are invalid due to an extension of subject matter (Article 138(1)(c) EPC, Article 123(2) EPC). On test for added matter UPC Court of Appeal, 14 February 2025, UPC_CoA_382/2024 (Abbott/Sibio),. [...] it follows from the above principles set out by the Court of Appeal that the content of an application must not be considered to be a reservoir from which features pertaining to separate embodiments of the application could be combined in order to artificially create a particular embodiment which has not so been disclosed in the application as filed. This test essentially aligns with the long-standing case law of the EPO Boards of Appeal. No added matter for the mere reason that the original claims have been replaced entirely by a new claim set which is not based on the original (independent) claims. By omitting the feature of verifiability the claimed subject matter extends beyond the content of the application as filed. Also the combination of features as claimed is not originally disclosed.
IPPT20250731, UPC CFI, RD Nordic-Baltic, Texport v Sioen
Relevance of the determination of the applicable law (Article 24 UPCA). n. Standing of TEXPORT as (unregistered) exclusive licensee (Article 47.2 UPCA). The Court notes that TEXPORT has submitted a document dated 9 January 2024, i.e. three days before its Statement of Claim was filed, where the patent proprietor – who also is managing director/CEO of TEXPORT – confirms that TEXPORT is the exclusive licensee of the Patent and that TEXPORT is entitled to bring actions before any Court, especially the UPC, under the same circumstances as him, the patent proprietor. Claim construction (Article 69 EPC). Claim element (layer 5) “the knitted material consists of a waffle structure” : . Direct literal infringement (Article 25 UPCA). Participation in a public tender in Portugal constitutes a patent infringement (offering) in (at least) Portugal, even though SIOEN is based in Belgium and despite that the offer was not accepted. It is also obvious that the offer in question originated from SIOEN, or at least was submitted by the local distributor only after SIOEN had agreed to manufacture and deliver the products in question if the tender was won. Hence, SIOEN has also infringed the patent in this regard. Injunction covering all Contracting Member States except Romania and Malta (Article 34 UPCA). Liability for damages of (unregistered) exclusive licensee (Article 68 UPCA). Order to communicate information (Article 67 UPCA, R. 191 RoP). The claimant also has a right to information needed to verify the information and to calculate the damage. No order to publish decision on SIOEN’s website (Article 80 UPCA). TEXPORT has not shown sufficient reasons for ordering the requested publication of the decision on SIOEN’s websites. Hence, the request shall be dismissed. Corrective measures – recall and destruction (Article 64 UPCA). Requests do not include consumers or firefighters/end-users. Proportionate recurring penalty of € 1.000 for each day of delay (Article 63.2 UPCA, Article 82 UPCA).
IPPT20250731, UPC CFI, LD Paris, Sun Patent Trust v Vivo Mobile
No need to decide on public access in the absence of any request (R. 262.2 RoP). Confidentiality club established (R. 262A RoP). Second request of 13 June 2025 not considered late since it is justified that the claimant received this information from its licensees after the date on which it filed its action before this Division. In addition, the second confidentiality request of 13 June 2025 does not constitute a change in procedural strategy that would be too burdensome for the defendants, since the latter had not yet provided their comments on the confidentiality application at the time of the second request. Article 262A RoP protection regime established even though there is an NDA between the parties. in accordance with Rule 262A RoP, at least one natural person from each of the VIVO Defendants should be included in the confidentiality club. The external experts who should have access to the confidential information must be named for accountability reasons.
IPPT20250730, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Avago v Tesla
Access to the register granted to Renault (R. 262 RoP). Access to the pleadings and evidence submitted to the court by the parties in the proceedings and recorded by the registry, in their redacted, blacked-out or non-confidential versions, as the case may be.
IPPT20250730, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Nutricia v Nestlé
Withdrawal of infringement action and counterclaim for revocation by party consent (R. 265 RoP). The amount of the infringement action is set at € 250,000. The amount of the counterclaim for revocation is set at € 500,000. (R. 370.6 RoP)
IPPT20250730, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Headwater Research v Samsung Electronics
Patent revoked to the extent of claim 1 because of added matter (Article 65 UPCA). Added matter (Article 138(1)(c) EPC, Article 76 EPC, Article 123(2) EPC). The criterion to determine whether a divisional application extends beyond the content of the parent application is the same as the one applied to determine whether an application contains added subject-matter with respect to the application as originally filed. When the Court has to decide on the merits, as it is case in the present instance, the standard to be used for assessing the presence of added subject-matter is the criterion of “beyond (reasonable) doubt”. Features 1.5.1 and 1.5.3.1 (resp. feature 1.5.3.2) are not disclosed in the earlier application as originally filed because, according to this application, the processor determines whether a network service usage activity is running in the background (resp. foreground), instead of whether a (first) device application is running in the background (resp. foreground), as claimed. The Court also finds that there is no API blocking access (features 1.5.2, 1.5.3) disclosed based on the determination that the application is running in the background. No new line of arguments allowed at oral hearing (R. 9.2 RoP). As the issue has been raised from the outset and the new argument is based on completely different passages of a lengthy document, neither the Court nor the other party may be forced to deal with it from scratch. Deciding otherwise would undermine the concept of front-loaded procedure established by the Rules of Procedure. Presumption of the register that Claimant is the person entitled to be registered as proprietor of European patent not rebutted by presentation of alleged co-ownership (R. 8.5(c) RoP) given limitation periods under German and French law.
IPPT20250929, UPC LD Düsseldorf, Headwater v Samsung
Withdrawal of action by party consent (R. 265 RoP)
IPPT20250801, UPC, CFI, LD Munich, Headwater v Samsung
Patent revoked because claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 10 and 35 are invalid due to an extension of subject matter (Article 138(1)(c) EPC, Article 123(2) EPC). On test for added matter UPC Court of Appeal, 14 February 2025, UPC_CoA_382/2024 (Abbott/Sibio), (Article 138(1)(c) EPC). [...] it follows from the above principles set out by the Court of Appeal that the content of an application must not be considered to be a reservoir from which features pertaining to separate embodiments of the application could be combined in order to artificially create a particular embodiment which has not so been disclosed in the application as filed. This test essentially aligns with the long-standing case law of the EPO Boards of Appeal (G2/10; G 3/89; G 11/91). No added matter for the mere reason that the original claims have been replaced entirely by a new claim set which is not based on the original (independent) claims. By omitting the feature of verifiability the claimed subject matter extends beyond the content of the application as filed. Also the combination of features as claimed is not originally disclosed.
IPPT20250730, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Aesculap v Shanghai International
Recurring penalty of up to € 30.000 on non-proper fulfilment of the obligation to provide information pursuant to order to communicate information of 10 July 2025 (R. 354.3 RoP; Article 67 UPCA). No further deadline required as the deadline was has already been set by the plaintiff (R. 118.8 RoP). Application is successful insofar as the applicant additionally seeks the threat of penalty payments. Setting a maximum limit per day gives the local chamber the necessary flexibility to also take into account the respondent's conduct in the event of an infringement and, on that basis, to be able to set an appropriate penalty payment in accordance with R. 354(4) RoP.
IPPT20250729, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Syngenta v Sumi Agro
Stay of proceedings by request of all parties (R. 295(d) RoP).
IPPT20250729, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Jinko v Longi
Procedural order regarding interim conference, oral hearing, handling of infringement and counterclaim for revocation at a later stage (R. 108 RoP).
IPPT20250729, UPC CFI, LD Milan, Oerlikon v Bhagat
Rectification rejected (R. 353 RoP). It must therefore be concluded that there is no material error in the decision on costs with regard to the quantification of the final sum paid to Oerlikon in the amount of €80,000.00, while the phrase “to this must be added €20,000.00 for the case on the merits” is a mere typographical error that did not affect the reasoning and whose failure to be taken into account in the final calculation does not constitute a material error to be amended here.
IPPT20250729, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Mailikie Innovations v Discord
Infringement action not manifestly bound to fail (R. 361 RoP) nor absolute bar to proceeding with infringement action (R. 362 RoP). German law requirements (Article 25 GPA) regarding having registered a domestic representative for the German national part of the patent-in-suit with the competent German Patent and Trademark Office (GPTO) or a power of attorney that fulfils the requirements of said provision is a German law procedural requirement but not substantive law.
IPPT20250729, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Maxeon Solar v Aiko Energy
Claimant to provide security for legal costs and other expenses to the Defendants 3. and 5. to 8. in the amount of EUR 100,000 (R. 158 RoP). Request not late filed. Rule 158.1 RoP clearly states that security for costs may be requested at any time during the proceedings. Waiting for the Claimant's annual financial results and the Court's ruling [of 14 April 2025] on the request for security for costs filed by Defendants 1., 2. and 4. cannot be considered an abuse of rights or bad faith conduct intended to harm the Claimant.
IPPT20250728, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Papst Licensing v Roborock
Application for extension of time limits granted with plaintiff's consent and agreement that service on the other two parties would be accepted (R. 19 RoP, R. 23 RoP, R. 25 RoP)
IPPT20250728, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, DDP v Greenchemicals
Withdrawal of the application for preliminary measures with the consent of the Defendant (R. 206 RoP, R. 265 RoP)
IPPT20250728, UPC CFI, CD Paris, Essetre Holding
Revocation rejected, patent maintained in amended form (Article 65 UPCA). Claim construction: patent’s own lexicon (Article 69 EPC). The Court considers that according to the ordinary meaning of the wording in common language as well as in the context of the description and the drawings of the patent, the term “a working surface” is to be interpreted as meaning “one working surface”. In this regard it is worth noting that the term “working surface” does not imply that the surface is planar but can also have other shapes including a folded shape. No added subject-matter (Article 138(1)(c) EPC). Para. [0041] provides one example, which is shown in figs. 7, 8 and 9, and according to paras. [0049] and [0050] variants and technically equivalent elements to this example may be used. Feature (1.6.3) has a basis in para. [0041] which discloses that “Subsequently, or at the same time as the lateral retraction, the frames 17 and 18 rotate, pushed by the linear actuators 43 and 44, as in Figure 9, in order to face each other as in Figure 10”. Novelty standard (Article 54(1) 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. Assessment of inventive step (Article 56 EPC). It is necessary to determine whether, given the state of the art, a person skilled in the art would have obtained the technical solution claimed by the patent using their technical knowledge and carrying out simple operations. Inventive step is defined in terms of the specific problem encountered by the person skilled in the art. It is first necessary to determine one or more teachings in the prior art that would have been of interest to a person skilled in the art who, at the priority date of the patent in suit, was seeking to develop an invention or process similar to that disclosed in the prior art. Then, it must be assessed whether it would have been obvious for the skilled person to arrive at the claimed solution of the underlying technical problem on the basis of a realistic disclosure of the selected prior art.
IPPT20250727, UPC CFI, CD Paris, Seoul Viosys v Laser Components
Reimbursement for costs totaling € 11,200. Cost decision may follow a decision or an order deciding a Preliminary objection (R. 150 RoP, R. 151 RoP, R. 20 RoP) closing the proceeding so that no further actions will have to be taken in this proceeding. While Rules 150 and 151 RoP speak of a “decision” and not of a “procedural order”, the issue of whether or not a separate cost decision can be issued with regard to a preliminary objection is to be decided considering material criteria. An application for a separate cost decision regarding a preliminary objection is admissible if the proceeding is closed so that no further actions will have to be taken in this proceeding. Generally, this will be the case when a decision or an order ends the proceeding in the first instance. Value of the action set at € 500.000; the same value set for the revocation proceedings by the Paris Local Division and set for the infringement action, after hearing the parties in the interim conference, the value was set at EUR 500,000.. Non recoverable costs of legal expert (€ 6,720) on interpretation of Article 33(4) UPCA. The team of representatives would have been able to consider the issues raised by the revocation action, and in particular, the issue of the interpretation of Article 33 UPCA, and on that basis prepare adequately and appropriately file their submissions.
IPPT20250725, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Centripal v Palo Alto
No breach of inspection order. The order of the CoA […] can only be construed so as to limit the inspection to the system actually being present at the premises of the order. (Art. 60 (3) UPCA, R. 199 RoP, R. 192.2(b) RoP). Defendant was under no obligation to increase the access rights of a mere sales person working at the premises detailed in the order to a level which would allow him to have access to the encrypted network security solution Claimant wished to monitor in real-time, if such increase of rights of the employee concerned is not necessary to have him carry out his duties required in his particular position as submitted by Defendant.
IPPT20250725, UPC CFI, LD Dusseldorf, Trumpf v IPG
No bifurcation (Article 33(3)(a) UPCA). Such joint hearing of the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation appears sensible for reasons of efficiency alone. It is also advantageous in terms of content, as it allows both the legal status and the infringement issue to be decided on the basis of a uniform interpretation by the same panel.
IPPT20250725, UPC CFI, LD Brussels, OrthoApnea
Cost decision for an amount of € 41.656,64. (Article 69 UPCA, R. 156.1 RoP). Late filed request to increase the recoverable costs ceiling. Rule 104(j) RoP and the Ceilings Decision stipulate that a request for an increase must be assessed no later than the closing of the interim conference. May not apply to the defendant if they are only informed of the actual representation costs claimed by the claimant during the course of the cost proceedings. Costs claimed are ‘facts’, for which – if disputed – the claimant needs to provide evidence (Article 54 UPCA, R. 172.1 RoP). Same standard of proof. If the ‘facts’ (‘costs’) are disputed by the defendant and if the claimant has evidence to support the ‘facts’ (‘costs’) presented, the claimant is obliged to provide such evidence. Contrary to what R 156.1 RoP suggests, such evidence does not only have to be submitted if the Court requests it. R. 156.1. RoP merely states that the Judge-Rapporteur has the power (‘may’) to have written evidence submitted to him and does not relieve the claimant of his burden of proof as set out in Article 54 UPCA and R. 172.1. RoP. The Court may apply the ceiling (as a safety net) with regard to recoverable representation costs if the circumstances of the case justify this. Translation costs (including translations made in the light of the defence and communication between clients and their legal representatives (‘representatives’) (or translations concerning decisions taken in the language of the proceedings) as well as the travel and accommodation costs of the legal representatives (‘representatives’) fall under representation costs. R. 152.1. RoP should be interpreted broadly in this sense.
IPPT20250724, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Cilag v Rivolution
Private interpreters are permitted to attend the oral hearing in Overflow Room 220b and to provide their interpreting services from there (R. 109.4RoP).
IPPT20250724, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, ZTE v Samsung
Value in dispute for FRAND counterclaim higher than value in dispute of infringement action (R. 370 RoP). A FRAND counterclaim is not a mere defence to the infringement action and its value in dispute therefore is not limited to the value in dispute of the infringement action. Since the Defendant 1, by filing a FRAND counterclaim that is not limited to the patent-in-suit, is seeking a licence agreement that goes beyond the patent-in-suit and that corresponds to its understanding of FRAND, it is not disadvantaged by having to pay fees that exceed the fees for the infringement action.
IPPT20250724, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Cilag v Rivolution
Private interpreters are permitted to attend the oral hearing in Overflow Room 220b and to provide their interpreting services from there (R. 109.4RoP).
IPPT20250724, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Truma v CAN
Withdrawal of action by party consent (R. 265 RoP)
IPPT20250723, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Qiagen v bioMérieux
Time period for lodging Reply to the Statement of defence and Defence to the counterclaim extended because of unavailability of redacted versions (R. 9.3 RoP, R. 29(a) RoP)
IPPT20250723, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Fujifilm v Kodak
€ 100.000+ penalty imposed upon Defendants (Article 82 UPCA, R. 354 RoP) to punish their shortcomings and disobedience with the operative part of the decision of the UPC Claimant seeks to enforce and to coerce Defendants to comply with what had been ordered by the Court. The penalty regime imposed is three-pronged. For the past period, a lump sum penalty payment (€ 100.000) is being imposed. In a next step, moderate daily penalty payments (€ 2.500 per day) are being imposed and a time period is set to catch up on what should already have been provided. In a further step drastic penalty payments (€ 10.000 per day) are being imposed, in case Defendants still are not prepared to comply with the decisions and orders of the UPC. No prior penalty warning required since the court did not put enforcement of the decision under further preconditions, it had been clear from the date of service, i.e. 2 April 2025 of the decision that compliance is mandatory and the only remaining step is a notification of the Claimant according to R. 118.8 RoP. No further warning was necessary. Indeed neither R. 354.3 or .4 RoP explicitly call for a warning. The language of R. 354.3 RoP does not call for a warning at least when – as it had been the case here – the decision on the merits unambiguously states that the imposition of penalties may be the court’s reaction to disobedience with the operative part of the judgement. One week deadline for recall and removal from channels of commerce seems reasonable (Article 62 UPCA)
IPPT20250722, UPC CFI, LD Paris, Tiru v Maguin
Hearing together of two parallel actions based on the same patent concerning the same alleged infringing product (R. 302 RoP) in view of the very similar arguments put forward in defence, and in view of the parallel evidence preservation measures that were carried out and which were the subject of almost identical criticism in defence, it is good administrative practice to examine the two cases together and, to that end, to order their joinder. Bifurcation of the counterclaims for invalidity for reasons of economy and efficiency to the Central Division, which was first seized of the application for revocation of the patent (Article 33(3) (b) UPCA). It is appropriate to order the bifurcation of the counterclaims for patent invalidity to the Central Division. This takes into account the fact that the Central Division was first seized of the application for revocation of the patent and should therefore deliver its decision more quickly, and that the arguments on the validity of the patent developed by VEOLIA before the Central Division are virtually identical to those developed in the counterclaims before this local division by VALINEA and MAGUIN. No stay of infringement action granted pending the outcome of the parallel action before the Central Division (R. 295(m) RoP) to avoid slowing down the infringement proceedings, which is in the interest of the claimant, but also in the interest of the defendants, as the duration of this dispute inevitably has an economic impact, particularly for companies in the VEOLIA group (such as VALINEA), a direct competitor of PAPREC, to which TIRU belongs, in the waste treatment by incineration market.
IPPT20250722, UPC CFI, CD Milan, Eoflow v Insulet
Direct infringement (Article 25 UPCA), revocation action dismissed by default (Article 65 UPCA, R. 355 RoP). Decision by default cannot be issued against the defendant based solely on a procedural violation or failure to defend (R. 355 RoP). Before issuing a decision by default against a defendant based on a procedural violation or failure to defend, the Court must verify that the case file contains sufficient, precise and consistent evidence to enable the judgment to be issued. The terms of the patent must be interpreted according to their principal functional meaning, bearing in mind the language used in the patent itself (patent’s own lexicon) (Article 69 EPC). When interpreting a patent claim, the person skilled in the art does not apply a philological understanding, but determines the technical meaning of the terms used with the aid of the description and the drawings. From the function of the individual features in the context of the patent claim as a whole, it must be deduced which technical function these features have individually and as a whole. The patent description may represent a patent’s own lexicon. The cap on costs of Article 1(3) of the decision of the Administrative Committee of 24 March 2023 applies in each instance of the court proceedings, regardless of the number of parties or patents involved. (Article 69 UPCA, R. 158 RoP). Consequently, when considering patent infringement, where both an infringing manufacturer and an infringing distributor are involved in two separate but parallel proceedings concerning the same patent and the same act of infringement, a unitary approach is warranted. The cap established in Article 1(3) would be otherwise violated.
IPPT20250722, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Nanoval v ALD Vacuum Technologies
Time period for starting proceedings on the merits following an order to preserve evidence (R. 198.1 RoP). Order of 18 March 2025 changing the start of the time period from 28 February 2025 to the date on which the expert report will be made available has become final as the order of the judge rapporteur has not been submitted for panel review (R. 333 RoP). The length of the time limit of R. 198.1 RoP cannot be extended (R. 9.4 RoP) but the starting date of the time limit is at the discretion of the Court. This discretion also includes a subsequent change of the starting date.
IPPT20250721, UPC CFI, RD Nordic Baltic, Edwards v Meril
Patent amended (Article 65 UPCA), Direct infringement (Article 25 UPCA). Competence in relation to Meril Germany (Article 33.1(a) and (b) UPCA). On the Meril website, Meril Germany is described as Meril’s European Headquarters and the brochure specifies inter alia that Meril Germany can provide information on the availability of the Navigator in Europe. Claim construction (Article 69 EPC). The importance of the patent claims means, inter alia, that a narrowing interpretation of the claims which deviates from the broader general understanding of the terms used therein by the person skilled in the art, can only be permitted in exceptional cases. Added subject matter (Article 138(1)(c) EPC). Court is not convinced that there is an inextricable link between the indicia specified in claim 2 and the slot, or with any other unspecified features: omitting those features (e.g. a slot) does not represent an unallowable intermediate generalization. Added subject matter in independent claim 1 as well as dependent claims 7, 9, 10 and 10. Insufficient disclosure claim 9 (Article 83 EPC). It is not clear to the person skilled in the art how Fig. 36 of EP 722 need to be modified to meet the requirements of claim 9. Inventive step (Article 56 EPC). Problem-solution-approach: The parties have used the PSA as the basis when they have discussed inventive step and the Court sees no reason to make its assessment based on a different test. Hence, the PSA will be applied. 22 auxiliary requests reasonable (R. 30 RoP). Edwards explained that auxiliary request 11 and 1’ to 10’ had been submitted in order to streamline the proceedings and to simplify the Court’s work in case there would be an issue in one of the dependent claims. Article 65(3) UPCA applies to limitations of the patent as granted ut not to applications to amend the patent. Joint liability Meril India and Meril Germany (Article 68 UPCA). Acted in a close and interdependent commercial relationship, based on their structure as members of a group of companies, they have a joint liability for their infringing acts in the participating member states of the UPCA. Each of the defendants to pay € 500.000 as provisional damages. When the Courts finds that a patent has been infringement, a request for an injunction should normally be granted (Article 63(1) UPCA). No overriding public interest; no reason to refrain from issuing an injunction in this case (not even in return for a payment in lieu), or to exclude certain sizes or grant a grace period.
IPPT20250721, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Malikie Innovations v Discord
Extension of time period for the Defence to Counterclaim for revocation rejected (R. 29 RoP). The time period does not commence before the claimant had been able to take note of the CCR in substance.
IPPT20250721, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Lenovo v Asustek
Order following interim conference on FRAND (R. 105.5 RoP).regarding submitting arguments by Asus and response by Lenovo until 1 September 2025 and proposals by the parties for topics for interim hearing of 18 September 2025.
IPPT20250721, UPC CFI, CD Paris, Sibio v Abbott
Revocation dismissed, maintained as granted (Article 65 UPCA). Inadmissible newly raised arguments for lack of novelty of the independent claims and added subject-matter in the dependent claims (R. 44 RoP, R. 263 RoP). The newly raised arguments do not follow the defence and there are no objective obstacles to their earlier presentation. Indicating in general terms that D2 will be used to challenge the patent's novelty or inventive step without providing a detailed analysis of the document with respect to novelty is insufficient to establish that this document is being used to challenge the patent's novelty. Although the dependent claims are subordinated to the independent claims, the grounds for their revocation must be stated at the outset, as the latter form part of the overall challenge to the patent in its entirety. Auxiliary requests included in Defence to revocation admissible (R. 30 RoP) even though the official electronic form (R. 4 RoP) was not used. No stay of revocation action when a counterclaim for revocation in infringement action is filed after the oral hearing in the revocation action (R. 75.3 RoP). Common general knowledge (‘CGK’) is subject to evidence and the burden lies with the party invoking it (Article 54 UPCA). No added matter (Article 138(1)(c) EPC). Strict compliance with the requirements of the gold standard in the context of the appraisal of added matter is of paramount importance for legal certainty. A patent proprietor should not be allowed to benefit from an unwarranted advantage by adding subject-matter not directly and unambiguously disclosed in the (earlier) application as filed, as third parties could then be confronted with claims extending beyond what they could legitimately expect when reviewing the original application.When a plurality of features taken from unrelated embodiments or from various lists of features in an original disclosure need to be combined to arrive at a claimed subject-matter, there may be added matter, in the absence of a clear pointer to the specific combination in the original disclosure. A prerequisite for any finding of added matter is that new technical information is presented to the skilled person. Under the ‘EPC’ and the ‘UPCA’, there is no requirement for literal support in the earlier application as filed, […] if the wording has been slightly modified, [but] the technical meaning remains the same. Added matter and intermediate generalisation. Intermediate generalisation is justified only in the absence of any clearly recognisable functional or structural relationship among the (imported and omitted) features of the specific combination. There is a so-called intermediate generalisation when a claimed subject-matter is obtained by importing one or more features from a certain embodiment in the original disclosure into a claim, while omitting one or more other features of this embodiment which were presented in combination with the imported feature(s) in the disclosure of this embodiment. An intermediate generalisation can be allowable or unallowable – in view of the prohibition of added matter – depending on the circumstances of the case. A mere allegation that there is a functional or structural relationship is not enough for the Court to conclude that there is an unallowable intermediate generalisation. On the contrary, a concrete explanation of an alleged functional or structural relationship, based on the content of the original disclosure, would be necessary. Inventive step (Article 56 EPC). An assessment based on two different starting points is appropriate. No incentive or pointer in prior art for dramatic design change.
IPPT20250718, UPC CFI, RD Nordic Baltic, Edwards v Meril
Confirmation of Settlement Agreement, confidentiality provisions (R. 365.1 RoP)
IPPT20250718, UPC CFI, CD Milan, bioMérieux v Labrador Diagnostics
Order following interim conference in revocation action (R. 105.5 RoP). bioMérieux to inform the Court: which claims of the patent no longer to maintain; which invalidity attacks are the most promising, which attacks the discussion during the OH will then focus on and which attacks (starting from those attacks) the Court’s preparation for the OH will also mainly focus on, and identify which invalidity attacks (added matter, novelty and inventive step, and for the last one in which combination of prior art documents) against which requests she would like to prioritise; whether there are (any material) differences between the validity attacks in the Claim for revocation case (48305/2024) on the one hand and the Counterclaim for revocation (in case 54050/2024) on the other hand. Labrador to file: the main request and the Auxiliary Requests renumbered in both cases.
IPPT20250718, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Fujifilm v Kodak - II
Infringement action dismissed for lack of patentability of UK part of European bundle patent (Article 25 UPCA, Article 65 UPCA). Reference is made to the decision of 2 April 2025. Infringement action exclusively governed by procedural law of the forum, in accordance with fundamental principles of international procedural law. Cross border jurisdiction UPC (Article 4 Brussels I Regulation, Article 24(4) Brussels I Regulation). UPC as court of the domicile of defendant does have jurisdiction to rule on an infringement action based on a patent granted or validated in a NON-EU member state even if the invalidity of this patent is raised as a defence. Inter partes effect only of validity findings: there is no jurisdiction for a defence which seeks to affect the existence or content of that patent in that third state, or to cause its national register to be amended
IPPT20250718, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Fujifilm v Kodak - I
Direct and indirect infringement in the UK by German defendants (Article 25 UPCA, Article 26 UPCA). Infringement action exclusively governed by procedural law of the forum, in accordance with fundamental principles of international procedural law. Cross border jurisdiction UPC (Article 4 Brussels I Regulation, Article 24(4) Brussels I Regulation). UPC as court of the domicile of defendant does have jurisdiction to rule on an infringement action based on a patent granted or validated in a NON-EU member state even if the invalidity of this patent is raised as a defence. Inter partes effect only of validity findings: there is no jurisdiction for a defence which seeks to affect the existence or content of that patent in that third state, or to cause its national register to be amended (cf. ECJ, judgement of 25 February 2025, C-399/22, para. 74 et seq.). Infringement in the UK: insufficient facts that there at least is an imminent danger that the Defendants will infringe upon the UK bundle patent by relocating the production site from Germany to the UK. Uncontested commercialization of Sonora-XTRA 3 plates in the UK. The acts of offering, placing on the market, using or storing it for those purposes had not been contested by Defendants with a sufficient level of substantiation (see infra). No UK prior use rights (Article 28 UPCA), at least 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. No time period in advance for communicating information (Article 67 UPCA) On the instant facts, considering the complexity, the panel regards it as not feasible to set an appropriate time period in advance in the individual case at hand. Whether the Defendants will have provided the required information in due time, depends on the circumstances and will be assessed in the enforcement proceedings, if necessary. Recall and definitive removal from the channels of commerce are two separate measures (Article 64(2)(b) and (d) UPCA).
IPPT20250717, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Sanofi v Accord Healthcare
Order following interim conference (R. 105.5 RoP). Following a decision to uphold the patent by EPO BoA and a French first instance decision invalidating the French part or the European patent.
IPPT20250717, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Faro v PMT
Application to postpone the date of the oral hearing for interim measures not granted (R. 210 RoP, R. 9 RoP). Due to the urgent nature of the hearing of an application for interim measures, a postponement can only be considered in very special circumstances. This does not automatically include the absence of the respondent's legal and patent attorney representatives due to holidays. In particular, it is generally reasonable to expect a legal representative to either interrupt their holiday in order to attend such oral proceedings or to take their holiday at a later date, or to send an instructed representative to the oral proceedings.
IPPT20250717, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Fujifilm v Kodak
Confidentiality club regime request for information to be provided in enforcement proceedings rejected (R. 262A RoP). First, it would have been for the defendants to already submit in the main proceedings that any information they would have to render in case of the court finding for infringement should be subject to special confidentiality provisions to be included in the main decision. Second, the court already clarified in its main decision as cited supra that the information to be rendered “must not be used for any other purpose than the purposes mentioned above”. This was to emphasize that it is an imminent characteristic of the information rendered in the course of enforcement proceedings, which are based on the enforceable operative part of a court decision, that the information may only be used in that context and e.g. not to engage in behaviour which were counter to antitrust law. Therefore alone, no further clarifications as applied for by Defendants are necessary. Third, a further protection may be possible under special circumstances “in case of an indication of a specific risk of misuse”. Defendants failed to submit any such facts. Defendants err, that the information being rendered in the course of enforcement proceedings may only be used until the termination of proceedings or until five years after receipt of such information (pointing to Art. 72 UPCA.). The decision is enforceable in various jurisdictions for a much longer time than five years.
IPPT20250716, UPC CFI, LD Munich, 10x Genomics v Bruker
Withdrawal of infringement action and counterclaim for revocation pursuant to settlement (R. 265.1 RoP). Only 40% instead of 60% reimbursement of Court fees (€ 30.400 and € 8.000, respectively) due to the parties having conducted the proceedings outstanding intensively. (R. 370.9(e) RoP). Application for compensation for injury caused by provisional measures requires payment of court fees (R. 213.2 RoP). The legal basis for this fees are Rules 370.2(e), 132 RoP ("Fee for the Application for the determination of damages") RoP. The expression "damages" used in Rule 132 RoP (Chapter 4: Procedure for the determination of damages and compensation) shall be deemed to include compensation according to Rule 213.2 ROP. This is explicitly stated in Rule 125 RoP (sentences 2 and 3). Defendants are reminded that the UPC is not based on the principle of free proceedings, but on the idea that the party who initiates proceedings and thus an activity of the Court by filing a statement of claim or an application must pay fees (Article 36(3) UPCA, Article 70 UPCA). 60% of the court fees (€ 151.800) will be reimbursed as action is withdrawn before closure of the written procedure (R. 370.9(b)(i) RoP)
IPPT20250716, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Fingon v Samsung
Time periods for filing the rejoinder in the infringement proceedings and the reply in the counterclaim for revocation proceedings are extended (R. 9.3 RoP). Special circumstances justifying an extension: plausible that the Defendants need information from the third party developer about said functionalities and the support of a private expert, and that they need time, after having received the information from the developer and the opinion of their private expert (who may take said information into account), to finalize their rejoinder in the infringement proceedings
IPPT20250716, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Fujifilm v Kodak
Panel rejects request to review rejection by judge-rapporteur of request to issue a penalty warning letter (R. 354 RoP, R. 333 RoP). The panel did not - in the main decision - fix time periods for the fulfilment of operative parts B.III, B.IV. and B.V. and also did not decide on amounts of penalty up-front. All related points will have to be addressed in the course of an application to impose penalties and only there appropriate penalties will have to be set in the light of the facts of the case. If Claimant had disagreed with the main decision, it would have been bound to challenge the points subject to this review with an appeal against the decision on the merits. It is not for the panel to now alter the operative part of that decision upon a request for panel review.
IPPT20250716, UPC CFI, CD Paris, Ballinno v Kinexon
Protection of confidential information in application for a cost decision denied (R. 151 RoP, R. 262A RoP). The information regarding the litigation costs does not concern the main subject matter of the revocation proceedings and does not directly influence Claimant´s business activities, as would be the case, for example, if technical information from research and development or concluded license agreements were the subject of the confidentiality application.
Further, the Court considers the limitation of the requested access to just one representative of Defendant to be unduly burdensome.
IPPT20250715, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Lenovo v ASUSTek
Case management order on interim conference on the subject of FRANF (R. 105.2 RoP)
IPPT20250715, UPC CFI, LD Munich, BioNTech v Promosome
Application for protection of confidential information unfounded (R. 262A RoP). The Confidential Information is already covered by the confidentiality order dated 10 March 2025
IPPT20250715, UPC CFI, LD Milan, Pirelli v Kingtyre
Confirmation by the Court of a settlement (R. 365 RoP)
IPPT20250715, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Qiagen v bioMerieux
Confidentiality club established (R. 262A RoP). Disclosure of prior art documents in Statement of defence not protected as confidential information. It is not sufficiently clear why the exact length of the peptides can be inferred from the collection of prior art in Exhibit. Furthermore, the information itself must be worthy of protection. Focusing on the context in which the information is presented in the Statement of defence would not enable one to distinguish it from non-protected information. Moreover, it is unclear how the Claimant could effectively protect the information against disclosure. UPC representatives and team: as part of their organisational autonomy, the UPC representatives are free to decide whom to involve in handling a case. External experts and team: External experts should be named in advance because of clear accountability.
IPPT20250714, UPC CFI, CD Munich, Baussmann v Raimund Beck Nageltechnik
Order following interim conference (R. 105.5 RoP).
IPPT20250710, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Aesculap v Shanghai International
Preliminary injunction, seizure and order to communicate information granted (Article 62 UPCA, Article 67 UPCA)). Absence of a party in summary proceedings from the oral hearing does not necessitate a default judgement (R. 210(3) RoP, R. 116 RoP, R. 355 RoP). Pursuant to R. 210(3) RoP, Rules 111 to 116 of the Rules of Procedure apply mutatis mutandis to summary proceedings. On this basis, the court is not obliged to postpone a procedural step, including a decision on the merits, solely because a party was not present at the oral hearing (R. 116(2) RoP). According to R. 116(3) RoP, a party not represented at the oral hearing shall be treated as if it were relying solely on its written submissions. Accordingly, the Local Chamber based its order on the respondent's submissions in the statement of opposition. Undisputed facts (R. 171.2 RoP). Only if the respondent disputes the allegation made by the applicant is it considered to be substantially disputed. If, as in this case, it does not do so and merely makes general statements about the applicant's burden of proof, the corresponding submission of the opposing party is deemed to be undisputed. Urgent interest regarding information on the origin and distribution channels to prevent future infringements, not with regard to production costs, profits and advertising, which is primarily relevant for the calculation of damages (Article 67 UPCA, R. 209.2(b) RoP)
IPPT20250710, UPC CFI, LD Hamburg, Nera Innovations v Xiaomi
Patent upheld in limited form (Article 65 UPCA). Infringement action dismissed (Article 25 UPCA): not all features of claim 1 are realised by the contested embodiments( Article 65 UPCA). Reasonable number of auxiliary requests (twice 33) (R. 30.1(c) RoP) because the actual core of the auxiliary requests is small, the opposing party is not faced with unreasonable challenges, even if the number of auxiliary requests is quite high. Added matter: inadmissible intermediate generalisation (Article 123(2) and (3) EPC) because the term ‘magnetic’ (as used in the application) has been omitted from the wording of the claim. Inventive step – prior art with different field of application (Article 56 EPC). Person skilled in the art has no reason to consult D5 when searching for a solution to the problem addressed by the patent in suit because the subject matter of D5 has a different mode of operation and a different field of application compared to the claimed system for wireless charging.
IPPT20250709, 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)..
IPPT20250709, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, InterDigital v Disney
Order under penalty of a fine of € 100.000 to accept service of anti-anti-suit injunction (AASI) by the representatives of defendants in the main proceedings (R. 354.3 RoP, R. 213 RoP). The request and the order issued are therefore inextricably linked to the main proceedings. Therefore, the power of attorney cannot be effectively restricted in this respect either. This is already evident from the fact that the representation of the respondents by the lawyers in the main proceedings clearly cannot depend on whether the AASI application is filed in the main proceedings themselves as an accompanying application under Rule 206 VerfO or in separate application proceedings. In both cases, the subject matter is the same: the protection of the main proceedings from the imposition of a ban on litigation in a foreign forum, which is intended to prevent the domestic continuation of the proceedings. Violation of code of conduct by representative which may lead to exclusion (R. 290.2 RoP, R. 291 RoP).
IPPT20250709, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Kodak v Fujifilm
Cost decision (R. 150 RoP). Defendants’ demand for reimbursement of representation costs for the cost procedure is unfounded. Proceedings for cost decisions under R. 150 et seq. RoP are summary proceedings, determined by the judge-rapporteur. Awarding compensation for the additional costs that can be attributed to the proceedings for cost decisions as such is not envisaged in the Rules. It would give the parties an incentive to spend considerable resources on these summary proceedings. Awarding costs upon costs cannot have been intended in the Rules. A party, even if successful in the context of proceedings for a cost decision under R. 150 RoP, will normally have to carry its own costs attributable to the cost proceedings. In exceptional cases a party may be ordered to bear any unnecessary costs it has caused the Court or another party
IPPT20250709, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Total Semiconductor v Texas Instruments
Preliminary remarks for the preparation of the oral hearing (R. 105 RoP)
IPPT20250708, UPC CFI, LD Milan, PMA v AWM
Value of the dispute for the infringement action and the revocation action set at € 2 million (R. 370.6 RoP).
IPPT20250708, UPC CFI, CD Milan, Maschio Gaspardo v Spiridonakis Bros
Direct and indirect patent infringement (Article 25 UPCA, Article 26 UPCA), decision by default (R. 355. RoP, R. 171.2 RoP). Competence of Central Division regarding infringement in Bulgaria by a defendant outside of the UPCA territory (Greece)(Article 33(1) UPCA). Claim interpretation (Article 69 EPC). The patent description generally presents the patent’s “lexicon”. When identical terms are used in a claim, they generally have the same meaning. However, 'claim language' does not forbid the use of different words for identical parts of a tool. It is only for certain parts of a device addressed in the claim that different terms are used. Level of evidence required and burden of proof for an in absentia decision. Rule 355.2 has a broader scope than Rule 171.2 and deals with a general non-contestation of all facts phrased in the statement of claim. Rule 355.2 requires that non-contestation be accompanied by facts justifying the remedy to prevent the claimant from gaining an unfair advantage [...]. Whether it is a declaration of infringement or a patent revocation, a decision cannot be issued 'by default' merely by acknowledging the absence of a defence. Rule 355.2 must be interpreted in light of the burden of proof principle set out in Rules 171.1 and 172.1, [...] In any case he claimant must put forward all elements in its possession to justify the legal requests. These elements constitute the de minimis requirements for a statement of claim to be considered complete and admissible. Rule 355.2, therefore, imposes de minimis factual allegations for a decision to be issued in absentia, namely those set out in Rules 12 and 13 RoP. It is not necessary to take a stand on patent invalidity, as the court does not raise the issue of patent validity ex officio, even in a decision by default. Direct infringement (Article 25 UPCA). Rebuttable presumption regarding other acts addressed in Article 25 UPCA. The Court may find for a direct infringement, where the completion of the infringing product by the user is clearly to be if a concretely outlined completion of the patented device is to be expected with certainty. Indirect infringement (Article 26 UPCA). “Offer” is to be understood broadly: Since the attacked embodiment can be ordered online from [Germany, Italy, France and Bulgaria] (with shipment to Bulgaria or pick up in Greece), it is offered there. The requirements of Art. 26 with regard to the so called “double territoriality link” are met where the offer and the putting into effect are established with regard to the territory of the contracting member states where the EP is valid. It is not necessary that both the offer and the putting into effect refer to the same contracting member state, even with regard to “bundle patents”.
IPPT20250703, UPC CFI, President, Avago v Renault
Language of the proceedings changed to the language in which the patent was granted, namely English (Article 49(5) UPCA, R. 323 RoP). When deciding on an application to change the language of the proceedings to the language in which the patent was granted for reasons of fairness, while all relevant circumstances must be taken into account, the arguments referring to the conditions in which the final decision may be enforced in the territory where the alleged infringement occurred are of less relevance in the overall assessment and balancing of interests, as they relate to the outcome of the trial – which cannot be anticipated – and not to the respective situation of the parties during the proceeding.
IPPT20250703, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Lenovo v Asustek
Application for extension of time period because of temporary shutdown of the CMS rejected (R 9.3 RoP).This circumstance is already taken into account by the automatic extension of the deadline in accordance with Rule 301.2 RoP.
IPPT20250703, UPC CFI, LD München, Headwater v Motorola
Security for costs for the benefit of defendants in infringement action, claimants in counterclaim for a declaration of invalidity (Article 69(4) UPCA, R. 158.1 RoP). Even if the defendant in an infringement action is formally the claimant in a counterclaim for a declaration of invalidity, he may, […] also request security for the costs incurred and/or to be incurred by him in bringing the counterclaim for a declaration of invalidity. Otherwise, the defendant could be unreasonably restricted in his legal defence because he is forced to file a counterclaim for revocation in order to object to the validity of the contested patent without any prospect of reimbursement of the costs incurred as a result.
IPPT20250702, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Swarco v Yunex
Security for costs cannot be requested regarding a party intervening on behalf of the defendant (R. 315. RoP, Article 69 UPCA, R. 158 RoP)
IPPT20250702, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Corning v Hisense
Extension of time period for filing the Reply to the Statement of defence and the Defence to the counterclaim because of establishing confidentiality club (R. 29(a) RoP, R. 262A RoP) to compensate for the period during which a party of the proceedings does not have full access to the subject matter of the case for the purpose of pursuing its patent rights.
IPPT20250702, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Quantificare v Canfield Scientific
No bifurcation (Article 33(3) UPCA, R. 37.2 RoP). A joint hearing of the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation appears sensible for reasons of efficiency alone. It is also advantageous in terms of content, as it allows decisions to be made on both the legal status and the question of infringement on the basis of a uniform interpretation by the same panel.
