UPC Court of First Instance - 2025 - 4rd Quarter

IPPT20251230, UPC CFI, CD Paris, PAPST v EPO
In its decision of 10 November 2025, the EPO rejected the request of registration of unitary effect of the patent in suit, based on the fact that the patent had not been granted for all member states of the UPC that were participating at the time the request was filed. (Malta) Request for annulment of the decision of the EPO rejected.  (Rule 97 RoP). The UPC applies EU law in its entirety and respects its primacy in accordance with Art. 1(2) and Art. 20 of the UPCA, including reviewing a decision by the EPO. Compliance with the guarantees afforded by the EU legal order in administrative proceedings is all the more important for the EPO as the competent authority, so that the question of whether the EPO is bound by EU law can be left open. Unitary effect is not tied to the designation of the states in the patent application, but rather to the grant of the European patent as the final result, as well as to the date of the request for unitary effect. (Article 142 EPC , Article 149 EPC) . This is a deliberate legislative choice to ensure the unitary character of the European patent with unitary effect and cannot be regarded as an unintended gap. Regulation No. 1257/2012 on Unitary Patent protection does not provide that the designation of one or more Member States shall be deemed to be the designation of all Member States. The unitary character of the European patent with unitary effect requires that the grant of the patent give rise to the same substantive rights in all Member States. Thus, if the patent has not been granted for a Member State, these substantive rights cannot arise in that State, and the patent does not have a unitary character. 

IPPT20251229, UPC CFI, LD Dusseldorf, Align v Angelalign
Leave to appeal the order disregarding non-infringement arguments rejected. (Rule 220 RoP). No reason to grant leave to appeal, given the discretion of the Court of First Instance on procedural matters and the the order’s close connection to the specific circumstances of this case, consistent application and interpretation of the RoP does not urge for leave to appeal.

IPPT20251223, UPC CFI, CD Paris, Bosch v. Valeo
Jurisdiction and competence of the court. (Article 33 UPCA). CD Paris lacks jurisdiction to hear the Infringement action as several defendants in the action have their domicile within the territory of the UPCA ; action transferred to LD Düsseldorf. The local division, and not the central division, has jurisdiction hear an infringement action (Article 33 1 (b)). In the case of multiple defendants, where one of them has his domicile, or its principal place of business,  or its place of business, situated within the territory of a State contracting party, whereas the other defendants have their domicile or principal establishment, or their establishment, is outside the territory of the contracting member states. In the absence of an agreement by the parties to bring the action before the CD Paris , the CD paris does not have jurisdiction. Language of proceedings changed to English (Article 49 UPCA, Rule 323 RoP).

IPPT20251222, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, InterDigital v Amazon
Confirmed ex-parte interim measure (R. 209.4 RoP, R. 212.3 RoP) prohibiting anti-suit injunctions or equivalent measures preventing pursuing patent infringement proceedings before UPC based on their European patents subject to the jurisdiction of the UPC (Article 56 UPCA). UK interim-licences equate to an anti-suit injunction (“ASI”). The UK measures referred to as “interim licence” or “adjustable licence“ are an anti-anti suit injunction,  exclusively directed against the Applicants enforcing their IP rights in foreign jurisdictions and therefore also before the UPC. No justifiable ground for such an order, which is directed against a party turning to a foreign court to have it assess that party‘s patent rights. Such order is especially not needed to safeguard the UK proceedings. Applicants have a legal interest in  defending against such an order even though it violates the ordre public of the European Union and therefore also the ordre public of the UPC contracting member states, which renders it null and void and thus unenforceable in UPC contracting member states. UK Final FRAND-rate setting is a measure equivalent to an ASI in the sense of the Impugned Order, should it encroach upon a party’s fundamental right to enforce its patent rights before the UPC. It is an excessive procedural tactic against comity and the acquis communtaire of the EU and the UPC contracting member states to impose such a concept upon foreign territories by way of a relief, which solely aims at depriving Applicants of pursuing their fundamental (intellectual) property rights and seeking access to justice before a EU court. This Order does not limit UK courts to attach whatever legal consequences to orders, judgment or other decision as long as such effects are strictly limited to the UK territory and do not attach any negative consequences to the Applicants for enforcing their patent rights in relation to the UPCA contracting member states.

IPPT20251219, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Ecovacs v Roborock
Ex- Parte order for inspection and preservation of evidence revoked on review, with the exception of confidentiality orders.  (Rule 197.3, 197.4 RoP). The submission for an ex parte order must be complete and must not mislead the Court, (Rule 192.3 RoP). If there has been a breach of Rule 192.3 RoP, the question of  whether the order can still be upheld in part does not arise. In these cases, the order is deemed to has been issued unlawfully. 

IPPT20251219, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, HP v Shenzen Moan
Preliminary injuction granted. (Article 62(2) UPCA, Rule 211 RoP, Rule 209 RoP). A decision by default is not considered. Regular PI order is applicable. (Rule 355.1(a) RoP, Rule 209(1) RoP). If the defendant does not lodge an objection within the time period set by the Court, the application for provisional measures can be decided based on the applicant’s submissions by means of a regular order in the PI proceedings. It is more likely than not that Patents A and B are infringed (Rule 211.2 RoP). by the offer and distribution of the challenged embodiments by Defendant 1.

IPPT20251219, UPC CFI, LD Munich, GXB-Bio Corporation v Myriad
Patent revoked for added matter. (Article 138(1)(c) EPC, Article 65(2) UPCA) The skilled person does not directly and unambiguously derive from Claim 1, that the claimed method for quantifying an expression level of a target gene refers to a target gene “in a FFPE tissue sample of human breast cancer tissues” and that the endogenous reference gene for the normalisation of the target gene is OAZ1. Claim 25 refers to a method for quantifying an expression level of a target gene without mentioning that the target gene is “in a FFPE tissue sample of human breast cancer tissues”. Other claims also contain no indication that the method according to claim 25 refers to a method for quantifying an expression level of a target gene “in a FFPE tissue sample of human breast cancer tissues”.Nor can the person skilled in the art derive directly and unambiguously from the other disclosure content that this belongs to the invention.The application also does not clearly and unambiguously disclose that OAZ1 is used as the (sole) reference gene for normalizing the expression level of a target gene in a FFPE breast cancer sample. The disclosure of a feature as such is not sufficient. It is necessary that it be directly and unambiguously disclosed as belonging to the invention. No implicit disclosure can be assumed . It is not apparent that the expression stability of OAZ1 required for normalization is a clear and unambiguous consequence of what is explicitly mentioned. Subclaims 2 and 3 also extend beyond the content of the parental application as filed for the same reasons as claim 1. Application to amend the patent based on Auxiliary Requests 1,2 or 3 refused.  (Rule 30 RoP). Each of these Auxiliary Requests extends beyond the content of the application as filed. 

IPPT20251219, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Lina Medical v Tonglu Qianyan
Following an order for preservation and inspection of evidence, the unredacted version of the detailed description provided by the expert is disclosed to the Applicant without giving the Defendant the opportunity to comment on confidentiality interests. (Article 60 UPCA, Rule 199, Rule 197, 196 RoP). Disclosure does not put the Defendant at an unreasonable disadvantage. The defendant cannot be reached via the CMS. Order was served on 18 November 2025, and the Defendant had been aware of the access code to the CMS. The Defendant had sufficient time to prepare for this situation and hand over the access code to a UPC representative. If the Defendant chooses not to do so, that is its own decision. This cannot be to the disadvantage of the Applicant.

IPPT20251218, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Polidoro v Bekaert
Counterclaim for revocation unfounded (Article 65 UPCA), Patent infringed (Article 25 UPCA). No added matter (Article 138(1)(c) EPC): same conclusion as the BoA of the EPO in the opposition decision regarding the patent-in-suit. Sufficient disclosure (Article 138(1)(b) EPC): Consistent with said claim construction, at least one way for carrying out the claimed premixed burner is disclosed, such that the persons skilled in the art can implement its structure and make routine calibrations to fit the number, shape and pattern of the disk holes to desired flow conditions at the inlet of the burner (reference to such calibration process is made in para. [0015] of the patent-in-suit). Therefore, the claimed configuration is sufficiently disclosed. 

IPPT20251216, UPC CFI, LD Dusseldorf, Align v Angelalign
Non-infringement arguments disregarded, request for the exchange of further written pleadings dismissed. (Rule 209 RoP, Rule 36 RoP, Rule 9 RoP). Submitted objection does not contain any non-infringement arguments as a reason why the application should fail. New non infringement  arguments cannot be seen as a response to the Reply of the Applicant, or as a further deepening of previously raised arguments. Non-infringement arguments and evidence in the Rejoinder not submitted in accordance with the time limit set the sense of Rule. 9.2 RoP. Right to be heart (Article 76 UPCA). The refusal of completely new non- infringement arguments and evidence raised for the first time in the Rejoinder, cannot be seen as a violation of the Defendants’ right to be heard.

IPPT20251212, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Asus v OPPO 
Claimant (a Taiwanese company) ordered to provide security for costs in the amount of EUR 200,000. (Article 69(4) UPCA, Rule 158.1 RoP). Enforcing a cost decision in Taiwan would be at least unduly burdensome, based on expert opinion. Taiwan is not a member of any international agreement which would govern the enforcement of foreign judgments in Taiwan. Based on the expert opinion, the timeframe to be expected for enforcement in Taiwan can vary from few months up to six years.

IPPT20251212, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Sanofi v Zentiva
Counterclaim for revocation of a secondary use medical claim patent successful, patent revoked in entirety. Infringement action dismissed. (Article 56 EPC,  Article 65 UPCA , Article 25 UPCA)  . Validity - Inventive step (Article 56 EPC). The invention of the patent is obvious over the clinical trial document cited as prior art (Phase III TROPIC trial (NHSC). Test to determine inventive step of a second medical use claim same as in (Amgen v. Sanofi-Aventis) Reasonable expectation of success . The question of reasonable expectation of success of the approach disclosed in the clinical trial documents , in terms of assessing an inventive step, is not the same as the question of whether the TROPIC trial will meet its primary endpoint. Pointer for success. The fact that a study is nearing completion per se, is neither a positive nor a negative pointer when assessing expectation of success. The fact that the Tropic trial has been approved and had been in progress for three years without having stopped supports the expectation of success. Six months before the ending of the trial the skilled person had a reasonable expectation for success. The crucial point in the present case is not the authorisation of the trial, it is the course of the trial without incident and the near ending of the trial, which leads to an expectation of success. The skilled person does not need to be certain of success by any means for rendering a solution obvious, it is sufficient if the skilled person would have followed the teaching available in the prior art with a reasonable expectation of success. National decisions and EPO decisions are to be considered by UPC panels , but are not binding. The panel follows the Tribunal Judiciaire de Paris’ reasoning and cannot agree with the conclusions of the Opposition Division and the BoA regarding inventive step. 

IPPT20251210, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, Maxwell v Samsung
Request to extend time limit for filing the next submission is dismissed (Rule 9.3 RoP). Circumstances relied on by Samsung are not considered exceptional. The number of auxiliary requests submitted  (44) are reasonable and manageable.

IPPT20251210, UPC CFI, LD Dusseldorf, Canon v Katun
Decisions taken at interim conference held online. (Rule. 105.1) Parties ordered to provide English translations of documents. Parties to submit preliminary estimate of legal costs.  (Rule. 104 (k) RoP). Parties to upload documents to the CMS that they wish to refer to for clarification during the oral hearing and that have not yet been submitted to the file.

IPPT20251210, UPC CFI, LD Dusseldorf, MAS Maschinen v Altech
Revocation dismissed (Article 65 UPCA). Direct and indirect patent infringement (Article 25 UPCA, Article 26 UPCA). Amendment of claim by motion in brief after interim procedure requesting submission of evidence supporting information to be provided refused (R. 263 RoP) in so far as the claimant argued at the hearing that she had been prompted to submit the new application by the order issued by the reporting judge in the interim proceedings on 10 November 2025, this argument does not exempt her from setting out the requirements under R. 263 RoP. Standing to sue of exclusive licensee (Article 47(2) UPCA). Doubtful whether a finding of a transfer of claims for the past by the patentee to the holder of an exclusive license is necessary as Article 47(2) UPCA states that the holder of an exclusive licence is entitled “to bring actions […] under the same circumstances as the patent proprietor”. In any event, such a transfer has taken place. Claim interpretation – Statement of purpose (Article 69 EPC). The claim that a device is intended “for the continuous filtering of impurities from a plastic melt” constitutes a statement of purpose. The device must therefore be designed in such a way that it is suitable for the continuous filtering of impurities from a plastic melt. Substantiating of grounds for revocation (R. 25 RoP). If the applicant for a declaration of invalidity relies on a lack of inventive step to support their application, it is not sufficient merely to name the documents on which they base their challenge. Rather, it is for him to explain the disclosure content of the relevant documents and, furthermore, to set out specifically why and how a person skilled in the art would combine the individual documents and thus arrive at the claimed solution without exercising an inventive step. The defendant’s submissions do not meet this requirement. Indirect infringement – exhaustion regarding replacement part intended for use in claimant’s systems (Article 26 UPCA, Article 29 UPCA). To be assumed that the replacement or exchange of the part in question is normally to be expected during the product’s useful life and whether the public or consumers can therefore reasonably expect to be able to continue using the purchased product, or to use it on multiple occasions, by means of the replacement part. Indirect patent infringement - recall , removal from distribution and destruction (Article 26 UPCA, Article 64 UPCA). Orders for recall, removal from the channels of commerce and destruction are generally not considered in cases where products are only challenged on the grounds of indirect patent infringement. No statute of limitation for damages sought as of September 2013 (Article 72 UPCA). Defendant interpretation that Article 72 UPCA imposes a time limit on financial claims relating to past events, finds no basis in the wording of the provision. Provisional damages require a sufficient factual basis (R. 119 RoP). Even though R. 119 RoP provides for the possibility of awarding provisional damages on a lump-sum basis, there must be a sufficient factual basis for such an award. Against this background, the claimant’s submissions must demonstrate that his claim is based on a plausible estimate grounded in specific facts. The claimant’s submissions do not meet this requirement.
 

IPPT20251209, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Headwater Research v Apple Inc.

Application for leave to withdraw infringement action and counterclaim for revocation action allowed with the consent of both parties. (Rule 265 RoP)

IPPT20251205, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Centripetal v Keysight Technologies
Infringement action dismissed due to insufficient substantiation by the Claimant. (Article 25 UPCA, Rule. 171 RoP). Inadmissible counterclaim for revocation (subject to intra-procedural condition). (Rule 25 RoP ). It is upon the claimant to substantiate why it is of an opinion and point to specific facts (Article 25 UPCA, Rule. 171 RoP) and,  if contested by Defendants - to offer adequate proof for such factual statements. In the absence of such statement, the Infringement Action has to be dismissed. Inadmissible counterclaim for revocation subject to intra-procedural condition (finding of infringement) (Rule 25 RoP). It can be left open, whether this situation falls within the ambit of amendment or withdrawal (Rule 263 RoP or Rule 265 RoP.) The aspect of costs is not an interest in itself  (Article 69 UPCA), the costs of the Counterclaim for revocation on Defendants part are not to be borne by Claimant.

IPPT20251205, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Centripatal Limited v Keysight Technologies
No reopening of oral hearing nor call for further evidence warranted (Rule 114 RoP.). It is not a tool to present new infringement allegations after the closure of the oral hearing.

IPPT20251205, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Roche v Menarini
Provisional injunction, seizure, obligation to provide information granted (Article 62 UPCA), interim award of costs (Article 69 UPCA, R. 211.1(d) RoP), no security for enforcement (Article 82(2) UPCA, R. 211.5 RoP). Injunction covering manufacturing may be issued even though the infringing product has so far been manufactured  by a third party outside the Contracting Member States (Article 25 UPCA, Article 62 UPCA). As the holders of the various national parts of the contested patent,the applicants were entitled to assert these jointly in a single action (R. 302 RoP). Claim construction (Article 69 EPC). Interpretation […] has no basis in the claim from a purely linguistic point of view, nor can the skilled person derive any indication of this from the rest of the specification. Not relevant at this point whether the prosecution history must be taken into consideration when interpreting the claims. Product claim. The method by which the protected product is manufactured is  in principle, irrelevant. […].  The situation would be different only if the patent specification provided indications that the method of manufacture is reflected in certain properties of the product, or that the claimed properties can be achieved only by a very specific method. Offering (Article 25 UPCA) must be understood in an economic sense. It should not be based on the legal understanding of a binding contractual offer. An offer therefore need not contain all the details that would be necessary for the immediate conclusion of a contract by mere acceptance of the offer. Sufficient conviction as to validity (R. 211.2 RoP) is lacking if the court considers it highly probable that the patent is not valid. Priority - “same invention” (Article 87 EPC) is to be interpreted as meaning that a claimed invention is to be regarded as the same invention as the invention in an earlier application if the person skilled in the art can derive the subject-matter of the claim directly and unambiguously from the earlier application as a whole, using general technical knowledge […]. The decisive factor is what the person skilled in the art, using their general technical knowledge and viewed objectively, can immediately and unambiguously derive from the entire application as filed at the time of filing, whereby an implicitly disclosed subject-matter, i.e. a subject-matter that arises clearly and unambiguously from what is expressly mentioned, is also to be regarded as part of the content. No impermissible intermediate generalisation: the skilled person will understand the term ‘essentially’ uniformly to mean within the tolerance range, as is apparent from general technical knowledge and does not require any specific disclosure. The skilled person knows that certain differences in the concentration of the analyte may arise, for example, due to the type of measurement (intermittent every 5 minutes or continuous, cf. page 14, lines 10–13). Urgency – no unreasonable delay of two weeks (R. 209.2(b) RoP, R. 211.4 RoP). Temporal urgency required for the ordering of interim measures is only absent if the injured party has pursued their claims with such negligence and delay that it can objectively be assumed that they have no interest in the swift enforcement of their rights, and it therefore does not appear appropriate to order interim measures. Necessity provisional measures (R. 206.2(c) RoP). Applicants face the risk of losing market share and encountering difficulties in establishing themselves in markets they have not yet entered.

 IPPT20251204, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Aesculap v Shanghai Boijn Medical Instrument
Date of oral hearing set for 17 June 2026. (Rule 28 RoP) . Shanghai Bojin Electric Instrument & Device Co added as a party.  (Rule 305 1(a) RoP). Court proposes alternate course of action. Claimant withdraw objections on re-establishment of rights. (Rule 320 RoP). Defendants 1 and 3 withdraw objections to the amendment of the claim to include the “Bojin rose cutter” to the proceedings (Rule 263 (1) RoP). 

IPPT20251204, UPC CFI, CD Milan, Insulet v EOFLOW
Follows from Order of 22 July 2025 by CFI CD containing enforceable penalty provisions, following an Order on injunctive relief issued by the Court of Appeal’s Order dated 30 April 2025. Order for the payment of penalty of  EUR 150,000 for EoFlow’s non-compliance with obligations. (Article 62 UPCA, Article 82.4 UPCA, Rule 354 RoP) It is highly unlikely that the parties altered their usual modus operandi as shipment/payment activity corresponds to what was already presented during the injunction phase. It is likely that Menarini and EOFLOW simply continued their previous import-export business despite the injunction.  The causal link between behaviour and event must be measured on the principle of ‘more likely than not’.  UPC CFI CD Milan has jurisdiction for the determination of penalty payments for enforcement under Rule 354 RoP. A penalty order issued under Art. 82.4 UPCA, or a preliminary injunction issued under Art. 62 UPCA, may be enforced by the UPC itself. Preliminary injunctions are also court orders within the meaning of Article 82 UPCA. Determination of penalty […] lies with the competence of the relevant division of the UPC at first instance. This jurisdiction extends to the enforcement of decisions issued by the Court of Appeal at second instance.  The order of 22 July by the CD Milan cannot be applied retrospectively to the COA decision of 30 April. Penalty assessed solely on the basis of order of 30 April. Only judgments that are purely interpretative of (already) established legal provisions may be applied retroactively. The detailed prohibitions set out in CD Milan’s decision, namely the penalties applicable to each item imported in violation of the order, cannot be applied retrospectively to the CoA’s order, even by way of interpretation, since the party affected by the injunction is bound solely ratione temporis by the order in force at that very moment and by the terms as specified therein. The CoA’s order dated 30 April 2025 is sufficiently clear and enforceable under R. 354 RoP. The imposed “periodic penalty payments of up to EUR 250,000 for each individual infringement satisfy the requirements of R. 354.3 RoP by clearly identifying both (i) the triggering event -  the circumstance upon which a specified penalty sum may be forfeited, and  (ii) the amount of the penalty which may be forfeited.  Accordingly, there is no lacuna that would require the Court of Appeal to issue any, more precise, further penalty order. The Court interprets the prescription in the order as referring to the type of violation established, i.e. the import or export of infringing goods, rather than to each individual product that was illegally exported. An interpretation applying a penalty of €250,000 for each individual act of importation or trade would be completely out of step with the market for the product and the market size of the parties involved.  If there is any uncertainty regarding the interpretation of the prescription of the CoA, the construction that is most favourable to the infringer must be adopted (in dubio pro reo). The purpose of R. 354.4 RoP is to enable the effective enforcement of injunctions. It ensures that the Court retains the flexibility to tailor penalties to the seriousness, duration and wilfulness of the infringement. The amount of penalty set by the Court of Appeal is not  merely indicative. Were that interpretation correct, the Court of Appeal would have issued an order devoid of practical effect and therefore unenforceable, which would run counter to the very purpose of the order issued.
 

IPPT20251204, UPC CFI, LD Brussels, BARCO v YEALINK

Preliminary objection closed, all proceedings and requests made by YEALINK dismissed, based on request made for withdrawal of Preliminary Objection (Rule 19 ROP)

IPPT20251204, UPC CFI, LD Brussels, CooperSurgical v European Distribution Center Motiva 
Withdrawal of infringement action allowed (Rule 265 RoP).Costs incurred by the Defendants cannot be considered “exceptional” within the meaning of Art. 69(2) UPCA. The Defendants have acted as any cautious and reasonable defendant would have acted. Given the EPO procedural background, it was reasonable for the Defendants to assume that the Applicant would appeal the EPO 's decision if it confirmed its Preliminary Opinion. The Applicant acted with "undue delay" in submitting the Application for Withdrawal two weeks after the EPO confirmed its Preliminary Opinion, knowing that this would be only two weeks before the Statement of Defence and Counterclaim for Revocation had to be submitted. Applicant to bear all costs of proceedings as "unsuccessful party". (Article 69(1) UPCA). Applicant is the “unsuccessful party”, not based on an assessment of arguments developed by the “successful party”, but merely on the withdrawal of the infringement action. ”Reasonable and proportionate” assessment of costs made from an ex ante perspective. (Rule. 152.1 RoP)  elements to be taken into consideration in this case are the value in dispute together with the ceiling, the significance of the case, the moment of withdrawal in the procedural agenda and the difficulty and complexity of the relevant legal and factual issues. Having the “costs” as such as an “ex ante” starting point with regard to the reasonability and proportionality safeguard the access to the UPC. Requested representation costs for Defendants 1-2 not reasonable and proportionate; an amount of €100.000,00 to be reasonable and proportionate. (Article 69 UPCA). Any reasonable defendant would timely prepare its Statement of Defence together with its Counterclaim for Revocation pending EPO proceedings and also further process these documents. The Action was withdrawn before the actual due date of the Statement of Defence and the Counterclaim for Revocation. Since the deadline to submit was due in 2 weeks, some work was still to be expected to be executed to fine-tune the SoD and Counterclaim for Revocation.

IPPT20251201, UPC CFI, CD Munich, TCL EUROPE SAS v Corning Incorporated
Decisions taken at Interim Conference ( Rule 105.5 RoP.) Deadline imposed on defendant to file responses and provide a table of amendments. Both parties allowed time to submit further briefs to address the legal implications in light of recent CoA decisions and not to introduce new facts or technical arguments.

IPPT20251128, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Hewlett-Packard v Zhuhai ouguan Electronic
Preliminary injuction granted. (Article 62(2) UPCA, Rule 211 RoP, Rule 209 RoP). A decision by default is not considered. Regular PI order is applicable. (Rule 355.1(a) RoP, Rule 209(1) RoP). If the defendant does not lodge an objection within the time period set by the Court, the application for provisional measures can be decided based on the applicant’s submissions by means of a regular order in the PI proceedings. It is more likely than not that Patents A and B are infringed (Rule 211.2 RoP). by the offer and distribution of the challenged embodiments by Defendant 1. 

IPPT20251128, UPC CFI, LD Munich, JingAo Solar v Chint
Counterclaim for revocation dismissed (Article 65 UPCA). Direct patent infringement (Article 25 UPCA). Standing to sue of claimant as registered proprietor (R. 8.5 RoP). No handwritten signature completely corresponds to another signature of the same individual; person signing is a Chinese citizen and therefore reasonably is used to sign with Chinese characters and not with Latin characters. Sufficient allegation and substantiation of the infringement action (R. 13.1(n) RoP). Explanations with regard to claim construction not mandatory (“where appropriate”). If all contested embodiments are identical in construction in the relevant features, a uniform presentation for all products of this series is sufficiently substantiated. No added matter (Article 138(1)(c) EPC). Claim 1 does not contain features from different embodiments: Figure 8 shows all the features present in claim 1. No lack of enabling disclosure (Article 138(1)(b) EPC) in view of description and drawings. Late filed combination of documents D28 and D31 challenging inventive step (R. 25 RoP): Not in the Counterclaim for Revocation but in the Reply to the defence. Late filed arguments regarding D8. Not accepted on its own as a basis for a validity attack. According to the Counterclaim, the defendants still considered it necessary to combine D8 with D22 in order to demonstrate a lack of inventive step. Defendant’s argument regarding a combination of D8 and common general knowledge is not a response to claimant's submission. Inventive step – no incentive (Article 56 EPC). The skilled person would have to flip the entire construction of the solar cell of D7 around to transform it into a front junction solar cell, the skilled person has no reason to do so, since D7 precisely proposes an improved back junction solar cell.  
 

IPPT20251128, UPC CFI, LD Munich, TP-Link v Huawei
Access granted to  redacted versions (personal data) of pleadings (R. 262 RoP) in accordance with the confidentiality orders issued in the proceedings and the applications filed 

IPPT20251128, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals v Moderna
Discretionary order to separate counterclaim for revocation proceedings into two counterclaims, one concerning each patent. (Rule 302.1 RoP). Payment of court fees also warrants separation in counterclaims for revocation – new court fees of EUR 20,000 due. (Rule 370.4 RoP, Rule 26 RoP). Whereas in an infringement action concerning several related patents, the fact that multiple patents are involved can be taken into account for determination of the value of the action for applying the Rules on Court fees. This is not the case for counterclaims for revocation, as the court fee per counterclaim action is capped at EUR 20,000. The only way to reflect the complexity and size of the counterclaim action in view of court fees, is therefore to split the case. 

IPPT20251127, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, InterDigital v Amazon
Defendants granted access to listen to the recording of the oral hearing before the Local Division Mannheim dated 14 November 2025 , in conformity with established confidentiality regime. (Rule 262 RoP, R. 115 RoP) Request to produce a complete transcript with the help of a stenographer rejected.  It is not necessary for the case at hand to coordinate with counsel of Defendants in non-UPC jurisdictions . Rule 115 RoP does not foresee that the UPC provides full transcripts of its hearings. A complete transcript of an audio recording is to be excluded especially in cases, where the parties set up a confidentiality regime and applied for the exclusion of the public during parts of the oral hearing. 
 

IPPT20251127, UPC CFI, CD Milan, Pari Pharma v Philips
Standing to sue for revocation action – a competitor is “concerned by a patent” (Article 47(6) UPCA). Any party (potentially) operating in the technical field of the patent are “concerned” by a patent. The legal certainty aimed at by allowing a standalone revocation action is especially important for competitors of the patentee who may want to make sure they have “freedom to operate” in a certain field and therefore safety with regard to developments and investments. Novelty (Article 54 EPC). The skilled person will generally not (directly and unambiguously) deduce dimensions from schematic figures. Partial revocation (Article 65(3) UPCA). Auxiliary request 1 inadmissible: leaves the amendment of the patent to the discretion of the Court, and is furthermore illogical, thus perplex. The Court may may not assess clarity and conciseness issues, if they stem from unclarity issues already present in granted dependent claims (Article 84 EPC). Inventive step (Article 56 EPC). Burden of proof of existence of common general knowledge is on the party invoking it (Article 54 UPCA). The inhalation valve an essential feature of the device of D3. There is no hint to remove the valves. Therefore, D3 teaches away from omitting the inhalation valve 20. 

IPPT20251127, UPC CFI, LD Paris, Keeex v Adobe
Preliminary objections dismissed (R. 20 RoP). Request to set aside a Statement of findings (procès-verbal de constat) and subsequent expert report not granted (R. 334(g) RoP). Reference to French national law to challenge the probative value not relevant as the UPC is governed by specific rules of evidence (Article 53 UPCA, R. 170 RoP - R. 189 RoP). Statement of Claim alleges that website is accessible within French territory (Article 7(2) BR) it is not necessary to demonstrate that the website in question is specifically aimed at the French public; the sole criterion that the website is accessible within French territory is sufficient to establish an infringement of a digital product or digital service offered online. Jurisdiction of UPC under Article 7 BR also extents to third country territories (namely Switzerland, Spain, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Norway and Poland), based on the BSH decision: applies regardless of whether the basis for jurisdiction is established under Article 4 of the Brussels Ia Regulation (domicile of one of the defendants) or on Article 7(2) of the Brussels Regulation (place where the harmful event occurred), contrary to what is claimed by the defendants.
 

IPPT20251126, UPC CFI, LD Brussels, Barco v Yealink 

Stay of Preliminary Objection proceedings ordered until the decision in UPC_CoA_317/2025. (Rule 295 RoP , Rule 19 RoP) 

IPPT20251121, UPC CFI, LD Paris, Merz v Viatris Santé
Application for provisional measures regarding a generic version of a product protected by SPC rejected. (R.206 RoP) MERZ failed to demonstrate seeking provisional measures against VIATRIS within reasonable delay provided for by Rule 211.4 RoP. Applicants seeking provisional measures have to justify that they have been sufficiently diligent to have access to an expedited procedure. To determine the starting point of the reasonable time limit for taking action, the Court should consider the question: 'When did the applicant become aware, or should have become aware, of the infringement that would enable him, in accordance with R. 206.2 RoP, to file an Application for provisional measures with a reasonable prospect of success?. The court does not follow the line of reasoning by the applicant that the UPC texts provide for two possible starting points regarding the reasonable time limit for taking PI action, which are successive points in time. (Article 62 UPCA, Rule 211 RoP). Article 62.1UPCA and Rule 211.2 RoP mention that 'the right is infringed OR such infringement is imminent', and do not make a distinction between two separate and consecutive situations that would create two phases likely to trigger the urgency criterion. Rather, they provide for two alternative situations that allow for a preliminary injunction claim to be brought before the UPC. The criterion of imminent risk of infringement is particularly relevant in the context of a generic product being placed on the market. The applicant need not wait for the product to be placed on the market to analyse it and gather sufficient evidence to demonstrate that such product infringes, at least prima facie, the claims of their title (patent or SPC). Such a product automatically falls within the scope of protection once it is classified as a generic version of the product protected by said title and declared as such.The fact that the first act of infringement on the French market occurred on the date of publication of the French market launch cannot be considered as a new starting point that creates urgency . Thus, to quote the terms of The Hague LD, this fact "was already (to be) expected and does not revive urgency". (Cilag v Rivolution)

IPPT20251120, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Canon v Katun
Exchange of further written pleadings partially allowed. (Rule 36 RoP). Claimant allowed to submit EPO’s preliminary opinion and a summary of the EPO’s reasoning until 21 November 2025. Submission of second test purchase rejected. The claimant does not sufficiently explain why the submission could not have been made earlier in the reply to the statement of defence filed on 16 December 2024 , as the test purchase was conducted in October 2024.  The submission does not introduce any genuinely new subject matter. 

IPPT20251120, UPC CFI, CD Munich, Baussmann v Raimund Beck Nageltechnik
Patent partially revoked for lack of inventive step , to the extent it covers more than auxiliary request III, with claims 5 and 6 remaining unchanged. (Article 56 EPC, Rule 25 RoP, Rule 30 RoP). There is no lack of clarity in the amended claim 1 in which the numerical value of the angle (40° - 60°) has been changed (Article 84 EPC). According to the original application, larger angles, such as 90°, are disclosed. The skilled person is taught, that angles  >60° are also possible, with 90° being mentioned as an example. Lack of inventive step in Claims 3 and 6 of the patent. (Article 56 EPC). When assessing inventive step, it should always be borne in mind that it must be avoided that an invention is assessed retrospectively. This also applies when common general knowledge is relied on, and in such a case, it is usually necessary for the person skilled in the art to have an incentive to arrive at the claimed subject matter based on the state of the art.  Scope of Revocation action : The plaintiff has not challenged claims 5 and 6 within the scope of the action for revocation. If the claimant in revocation action decides not to attack one or more claims of the patent as granted, the court and the defendant are bound to this scope of the action. 

IPPT20251119, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, InterDigital v Disney
Further exchange of written pleadings allowed (Rule 36 RoP) . Claimant permitted to respond to Defendant’s arguments regarding noninfringement and FRAND.

IPPT20251119, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Bekaert v Siltronic
Confidentiality club regime regarding inspection report by expert. (Article 60 UPCA, Article 58 UPCA,  Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure). Confidential information irrelevant to the question of infringement must be redacted. Access to confidential information relating to the issue of infringement and/or the scope of acts of use, to be decided on case-by-case basis 

IPPT20251118, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Lina v Schultz

IPPT20251118, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Lina Medical v Tonglu Qianyan
Ex- Parte order for Preservation and inspection of evidence granted (Art. 60 UPCA, R 192,  R. 194 (d),  197, 199 RoP). Applicant has credibly demonstrated that the “disposable morcellator“, exhibited at the MEDICA exhibition in Düsseldorf, makes use of the teaching of the patent in suit . All features set out in claims 1 to 6 of the patent are implemented. With the exception of the labelling, the product which is presented by the Defendant is identical in appearance to the American product examined by the Applicant. The Applicant has demonstrated why the proposed measures are needed to preserve evidence without hearing the Defendant.

IPPT20251118, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, Advanced Cell Diagnostics v Molecular Instruments
Patents valid (Article 65 UPCA) but not infringed (Article 25 UPCA).Claim Interpretation (Article 69 EPC, Interpretation Protocol). Feature 1(h): No literal infringement: It follows from the strict, literal wording of the claim that the term “non-overlapping” is to be interpreted as not allowing any kind of overlap. This literal interpretation is confirmed when considering the teaching of the patent specifications. No infringement by equivalence with regard to the missing ‘non-overlapping’ feature. In view of the legal certainty for third parties, the Court finds it difficult if not impossible to properly construe how much overlap would then still be equivalent. The nucleotide overlap in the defendant’s products has technical function of its own. No added matter (Article 138 (1)(c) EPC).The test for added matter is the same gold standard as set out for novelty. In order to assess whether there is added matter, the Court must first ascertain what the skilled person would derive directly and unambiguously using common general knowledge and seen objectively and relative to the date of filing, from the whole of the application as filed, whereby implicitly disclosed subject-matter, i.e. matter that is a clear and unambiguous consequence of what is explicitly mentioned, shall also be considered as part of its content. For feature 1(h), which teaches that the at least two capture probes hybridize to non-overlapping regions of the label probe, no expressis verbis basis can be found in the original application as filed. However, in all figures in which at least two capture probes bind to the label probe, this binding is to non-overlapping regions. For instance, from figure 4, replicated once more below, it can be derived that the binding/hybridisation of the L sections of the capture probe is to non-overlapping sections of the label probe LP. Inventive step (Article 56 EPC). Prior art teaches away from invention. 

IPPT20251117, UPC CFI, LD Lisbon, Boehringer v Zentiva
Preliminary Objection rejected, the UPC has exclusive Jurisdiction. (Article 31 , Article 32 UPCA, Rule 19.1(a) RoP) . No opt-out from the exclusive competence related to the Patent is in effect. (Rule 19.1(a) RoP). The action lodged by the Claimant does not concern an administrative matter. (Article 1(1) Brussels Regulation).  

IPPT20251117, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Leap Tools v Wizart     
Service of Statement of claim at an alternative place allowed - CEO’s business address in Poland. (Rule 275.1 RoP)Good reason to authorise alternative service after two failed service attempts. 

IPPT20251117, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Komax v Jiangsu
Ex – parte order for inspection and preservation of evidence granted for the respondent’s exhibition booth at an upcoming trade fair, pending validity proceedings.  (Rule 192, Rule 194, Rule 197, 199 RoP). The “BZW3005” machine, which is expected to be exhibited at “Productronica” in Munich, may make use of the technical teaching of of the patent
 

IPPT20251117, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Otec v Steros
Unredacted version of the expert’s description following an order for inspection and preservation of evidence disclosed to the applicant. (Article 60 UPCA, Rule 196, Rule 194, 199 RoP). Respondent has not asserted confidentiality interests with regard to the information contained in the description provided by the expert. An order for inspection and preservation of evidence must contain a statement that the results of these measures may only be used in the relevant proceedings on the merits (unless the court orders otherwise). 
 

IPPT20251112, UPC CFI, LD Brussels, Organon v Genentech
Ex parte orders to preserve evidence and for inspection confirmed (R 197.3 RoP. R. 199 RoP). A double assessment determines the scope of review proceedings. First, the Court should assess whether it has “rightly” decided to issue the “ex parte” Order. The Court should then assess whether the Orders are to be confirmed, modified or revoked. Facts and evidence to be taken into consideration include all facts and evidence  presented to the Court by the parties. (Rule 194.3(b) RoP). For both assessments the Court should place itself on the date of issuance of the Orders. The scope of the review assessment does not pertain to the actual execution of the Orders and/or the outcome of such execution or any information gathered during such execution. As such, the general purpose of an order to preserve evidence/for inspection is to: a) anable an applicant who has "presented reasonably available evidence to support the claim" to access additional information that is not publicly available to prove the infringement and the acts constituting infringement, and b) If granted, based on the preserved information, enable the applicant to evaluate the reliable prospects of success in initiating infringement proceedings. “About to be infringed” in Art. 60 UPCA does not have the same meaning as “urgency” (in  R. 194(2) RoP) or “unreasonable delay” in R. 211.4 RoP: must be a plausible a risk of infringement and it must be apparent that it will occur in the future. According to Art. 60(5) UPCA measures shall be ordered ex parte, where delay is likely to cause irreparable harm, or where there is a demonstrable risk of evidence being destroyed. “Ugency” is only one of the elements that the Court should consider when exercising discretionary powers and, therefore, cannot be considered a compulsory precondition for granting the requested measures “ex parte”.

IPPT20251113, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, AdvanSix v Troy Chemical
Withdrawal of infringement proceedings granted with parties’ consensus. Confidentiality pertaining to confidential settlement information maintained.  (Rule 265 RoP , Rule 262.2 RoP)

IPPT20251112, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, American Wave Machine v Surftown
Request for review of order regarding dismissal of extension of time period for lodging of a rejoinder denied. (Rule 333.1 RoP, Rule 9 (3) RoP). Reasons why Defendants needed an extension of time is not pointed out in the request for extension or the panel review request. (Rule 9 (3)RoP). Their sole argument can be deduced to the fact that the Claimant had more time to file a brief than the Defendants. Besides the fact, that the Rules of Procedures accept different time periods for different briefs. The Defendant’s approach regarding filing an application for confidentiality to cause delay would lead to situations where parties would be able to file applications for confidentiality in the future well knowing that any delay caused by their application would additionally grant them longer time periods for their further submissions. (Rule 262A RoP)

IPPT20251111, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Solvay v Zhejiang 
Panel review confirmation of Judge Rapporteur’s order dated 25 September 2025 regarding confidentiality club (Rule 262A RoP, Rule 333 RoP). It is possible for a person who is not an employee of a party to join a confidentiality club, depending on the relevant circumstances of the case.  Rule 262A.6 RoP does not require that the person to whom access is given be an employee of a party or a representative. (Art. 48 UPCA) Such a requirement does not follow from the wording of the provision and unduly restricts a party’s freedom to choose its assistants in the proceedings (UPC_CoA_621/2024 Daedalus v Xiaomi). 

IPPT20251111, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, HP v Rentmeister
The steps already taken to bring the application for provisional measures to the attention of the Defendant constitute good service. (Rule. 275.2 RoP) following the Dusseldorf court’s compliance with the requirements for an application for provisional measures as per the Hague Convention, the status of the request for service remaining unchanged on the official portal of the Chinese authorities, the establishment that the address of Defendant is correct and that two requests for information on the status of the service, have remained unanswered for three weeks. There is no scope for an order under (R. 275.1 RoP) given that the first attempt took three and a half months and the Applicant’s attempt to inform the Defendant of the application for provisional measures by email has remained unanswered. 

IPPT20251107, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Yangtze v Micron 
Request for extension of time period for lodging the statement of defence allowed. (Rule 9.3 RoP). It is in the interests of both parties and the Court that the time limits in 3 three parallel cases end at the same time. The extension of the time periods is not expected to cause any significant delay in the proceedings. 

IPPT20251106, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Align v Angelalign 

Request for security for costs dismissed. (Rule 158 RoP).  Defendants have not argued that the financial position of the Applicant gives rise to a legitimate and real concern that costs may not be recoverable. Defendants have not provided any evidence as to foreign law applicable in the territory where the order is to be enforced, or any evidence on the application of such law.  

IPPT20251106, UPC CFI, CD Paris, Microsoft v Suinno
Costs decision (Article 69 UPCA) Costs incurred by Microsoft set at EUR 350,000.00, To be paid by Suinno in three weeks

IPPT20251106, UPC CFI, LD Hamburg, Brita v Fileder 
Provisional measures granted via an ex-parte preliminary injunction for the seizure and surrender of infringing goods.  (Article 62 UPCA, Rule 206 RoP, Rule 211 RoP , Rule 212 RoP , Article 25 UPCA). The applicant has demonstrated that the contested embodiments utilize all features of claim 1 of the patent. It is sufficiently demonstrated that the respondent supplies the German distribution company with the contested embodiments, thus engaging infringing acts . (Article 25(a) UPCA). The matter is urgent and there are no indications of undue delay by the petitioner. (Rule. 209.2(b) RoP , Rule 211.4 RoP)
 

IPPT20251105, UPC CFI, LD Hamburg, Dolle v Farko
Counterclaim for revocation unsuccessful, patent valid and infringed (Article 25 UPCA, Rule 25 RoP). No invalid claim of priority of the first application. (Article 87 EPC) . The term “the same invention” is to be interpreted as meaning that a claimed invention is to be regarded as the same invention as the invention in an earlier application if the person skilled in the art can derive the subject matter of the claim directly and unambiguously from the earlier application as a whole, using general technical knowledge.  (UPC_CoA_382/2024). The person skilled in the art can directly and unambiguously derive features 1.6 and 1.7 from the priority document, even if the features are not explicitly set forth in the priority document. The patent is novel over late filed prior art documents (Annexes NK 22 and 23) (Article 54 EPC) . Which were submitted after the expiration of the deadline. The expansion of the revocation claim to include late filed prior art documents constitutes an amendment under Rule 263 RoP. The burden of proof that neither the requirements of Rule 263(1) RoP nor the grounds for exclusion under Rule 263(2) RoP are met lies with the applicant. Based on this, there are doubts as to whether the defendants’ submissions justify the admission of this extension of the counterclaim despite the delay. Patent Infringed (Article 25 UPCA). The contested embodiments implement all the features of claim 1 without difficulty. 
 

IPPT20251031, UPC CFI, CD Paris, IMI v Belparts
Request to join the counterclaim for infringement together with the pending infringement action rejected. (Rule 340 RoP).  Allowing the requests would still result in multiple oral hearings and multiple decisions, as a result of procedural choices made by the parties. 

IPPT20251030, UPC CFI LD Paris, Sun Patent v Vivo
Preliminary objection on jurisdiction and competence rejected. (Article. 32(1)(a) UPCA , Article 33 UPCA, Rule 19 RoP). UPC has jurisdiction to hear the main infringement claim, including a claim for an injunction.  (Article 32 (1 (a) UPCA). The main issue of infringement of an essential patent is undoubtedly linked to the incidental question of the FRAND offer, as a condition dependent on the main issue. The FRAND issue can be dealt with incidentally by the UPC according to consistent UPC CFI caselaw . Internal competence of first instance court (Article 33(1)(a) UPCA). The purchase and delivery of an allegedly infringing product via a French website establishing a link to France, is sufficient to establish competence. The claimant sufficiently showed a connection between all defendants and the alleged infringement. 

IPPT20251030, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Van Loon v Inverquark 
Ex-parte order for inspection and preservation of evidence granted. (Article 60 UPCA, Rule 192 ,196 RoP). It is possible that the product "InverJet," as exhibited at the Aquanale trade fair in Cologne, makes use of the technical teaching of the patent.  (Art. 60 (1) EPC).  The applicant has referred to photographs showing the external structure of the "InverJet" and used these to explain why it assumes that the features are realized. An examination of the validity of the patent is not to be carried out in the present proceedings. (Art 65 UPCA). The only time this wouldn't apply is if there are clear signs that the legal validity of the patent application is in doubt, for example, if there's been a negative decision on validity. However, there are no such indications. The fact that the respondents in the pre-trial letter and in the protective letter cast doubt on the validity of the patent application on the grounds of inadmissible extension is not sufficient . The inspection and preservation of evidence is urgent. (R. 194. 2 b) Sufficient substantiation of the infringement can only be provided by examining the product exhibited at the trade fair, which would involve taking measurements and, if necessary, opening the counterflow system. It was not possible for the applicant to carry out a test run, take detailed measurements, or dismantle the product that it obtained from a Distribution customer. The product is no longer available from the distribution customer. Order issued ex parte : demonstrable risk that evidence would be destroyed or would no longer be available.(Rule. 192.3, 197 RoP)There is a serious risk that the "InverJet" will be removed from the exhibition grounds at short notice. it would be almost impossible for the applicant to obtain evidence of what it considers to be an infringement of the patent in question by the aforementioned product. The existence of a protective letter does not preclude the issuance of an ex parte inspection order. (Rule 207 RoP, 211 RoP). The protective letter does not contain any specific reasons against the issuance of an ex parte order for viewing and inspection. Rather, it is specifically aimed at preventing the issuance of provisional measures without prior hearing , the existence of the protective letter does not in itself alter the risk of the "InverJet" being removed from the exhibition grounds. 

IPPT20251023, UPC CFI, CD Milan, bioMérieux v Labrador
Patent maintained in the form of the third Auxiliary Request (Article 65 UPCA). Appropriate to limit the revocation assessment to a maximum of different documents to challenge the novelty and to argue for non-inventiveness (R. 44 RoP, R. 104 RoP). The Court holds that the attacks not identified by bioMérieux as (most) promising do not warrant further investigation on the merits because, when the party submits a number of attacks that appear to be unmanageable by the Court in accordance with the principles of proportionality (point 3 of the preamble) and speed (point 7 of the preamble), and the same party is unable to re-module some of the attacks in such a way as to allow the Court to organise its time for the efficient management of the proceedings, it must be considered that if the (most) promising attacks, after assessment of the Court, do not affect the validity of the claim(s), the others wouldn’t have done so either. Agreed amount of legal costs will not be kept confidential (Article 58 UPCA, R. 262 RoP): In principle, the costs of the proceedings are not covered by confidentiality unless they are specifically indicative of the company's financial capacity, its commercial strategy, or the importance of the patent as a corporate asset. Since the agreement on the amount of the legal costs between parties, does not (simply) say anything about the company's financial capacity, its commercial strategy, or the importance of the patent as a corporate asset, the request of Labrador to order the agreed amount as confidential will be dismissed
 

IPPT20260129_UPC_CoA_Alpinestars_v_Dianese.pdfIPPT20251022, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Honeywell v Sovex
Preliminary objections rejected (R. 19 RoP). International jurisdiction regarding defendant Hemtech, not domiciled in a Member State (Article 71(b)(2) Brussels). The fact that Honeywell did not (also) explicitly mention this paragraph 2 of Art. 71b Brussels I recast Regulation in the SoC, does not mean that international jurisdiction of the Court should be denied. Honeywell did state the facts and ultimate ground and principle for international jurisdiction it relies on, namely Art 7(2) Brussels I recast Regulation, […]. Honeywell also explicitly stated that it has suffered and suffers damage in Germany and other UPC Member States where the patent is valid because the Defendants have infringed and continue to infringe the patent in those States. The UPC has competence (Article 32 UPCA, Article 33 UPCA, Article 63 UPCA, Article 25 UPCA) with regard to managing directors (defendants Solvest V, Solvest VI, Solvest VII, Solvink and De Kleine Beuk) to whom infringing acts may be attributable since the action against them can be identified as an alleged action for actual or threatened infringement within the meaning of Art. 32(1)(a) UPCA. Whether these Defendants in fact commit infringing acts themselves and/or whether infringing acts of other entities are attributable to them in the sense that they are an “infringer” within the meaning of Art. 63 UPCA in conjunction with Art. 25 UPCA, is a question to be addressed in the case on the merits. It is sufficiently asserted that infringement has occurred or may occur in Germany (Article 33 UPCA). Even when applied in a restricted way, Art. 33(1)(a) UPCA provides for competence of the Local Division Mannheim in this case. The license agreement covers the territory of all of continental Europe and since the (alleged) termination of this agreement in March 2024, Defendants continue to market the allegedly infringing products. It is not required that the website Honeywell relies on is specifically directed at Germany, it suffices that the website is accessible within the territory of Germany.

IPPT20251022, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, Abbott Diabetes v Sinocare
Request for a provisional injunction and additional measures dismissed. Infringement not more likely than not  (R. 211 RoP). Jurisdiction because of combined/joint threatened infringement by Sinocare and Menarini in UPCA territory of the same patent in the same territory with the same product (Article 7(2) BR). Not in dispute is that Sinocare makes the iCan CGM App available on its website, specifically also for countries within UPCA territory, and that it is the manufacturer of the GlucoMen iCan and named as such in the Eudamed entry for the GlucoMen iCan and in the user guide. Furthermore, Menarini and Sinocare announced that they would cooperate in bringing the Glucomen iCan to the European market. At least there is then combined/joint threatened infringement in UPCA territory. Furthermore, this concerns alleged (threatened) infringement of the same patent in the same territory with the same product. Jurisdiction vis-à-vis Sinocare can therefore be based on Art. 7(2) BR. No unreasonable delay of 2 months to assess infringement before starting these proceedings on 27 June 2025. (R. 211.4 RoP). Claim interpretation - the feature that ‘(...) the timeline graph includes event data icons (318)’ - equivalents (Article 69 EPC). More likely than not that this feature requires the event data icons to be displayed on the timeline graph itself, i.e. in case the timeline graph screen has several panels, this feature teaches that the data icons must be displayed on the panel showing the timeline graph. It is important to note that UP 471 focuses specifically on the layout of the display for the receiver unit of a glucose monitoring system. In fact, the layout of the display is the main teaching of the patent, describing and claiming the layout of the display with/in great detail. A difference in the layout of the display is therefore meaningful and can be a key point, even though another layout may have the same function. No infringement because the event data icons are not included in the timeline graph. Interim award of costs of € 400.000. The Court considers that also the applicant in a case concerning the application for provisional measures, may be ordered to pay an interim award of costs, should this not be considered clear from R. 211.1(d). Such interpretation follows the principle of proper and fair administration of justice.

IPPT20251021, UPC CFI, LD Hamburg, Occlutech v Lepu Medical
Preliminary injunction granted (Article 62(1) UPCA). Sufficient proof of threat of imminent infringement with medical device (R. 206.2(c) RoP): by obtaining (and publicly announcing) CE-mark approval for the attacked embodiments after the necessary clinical evaluation, providing “ordering information” and announcing to show-case their products on a trade fair (“device parade”) the Defendants have set the stage to market these products. Applicant has treated the matter with the necessary urgency. It is not relevant at which point the Applicant gained general knowledge of the attacked embodiments and their appearance as long as their marketing in the European Union could not have been considered imminent due to lacking the EU certification of conformity (CE-mark). As this CE-mark approval is, as stated above, a prerequisite for legally marketing a medical device in the European Union, any knowledge of the Applicant regarding the attacked embodiments prior to this date is not relevant. Unfounded request for security for costs (R. 352.1 RoP). The information provided by the Defendants does not enable the Court to assess any possible damage, which the Applicant may be liable to bear in the event that the Court revokes the order for provisional measures. 

IPPT20251021, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, Amycell
Permanent injunction by default judgement in infringement action, following preliminary measures of 31 July 2024 and appeal of 28 November 2025. Patent valid and infringed. (Article 25 UPCA) Earlier preliminary measures upheld by order of a permanent injunction, with the addition that total penalty be maximised ; (Art. 63 UPCA , Article 34 UPCA).The Court has international jurisdiction to hear the infringement Action (Art. 7.2 Brussels Regulation) because the alleged infringement by the Polish Defendant also takes place in the Netherlands. 
Re – establishment of rights denied after failing to submit the Statement of Defense on time by a default decision in order dated April 1 2025.  (Rule 320 RoP, Rule 355 RoP).The applications filed by the Defendant after the Order was issued, are not admitted and the request to reverse the Order with these applications is dismissed. In the Order the termination of the Action with a decision by default was announced. The fact that some time passes between the issuing of the Order, does not change this. The default decision only confirms the injunction that is already in place pursuant to the PM Order; it does not change the factual and legal situation, apart from replacing a provisional by a permanent injunction. Decision by Default  (Rule 355 RoP).The Court understands a decision by default under R.355.2 RoP to mean that in a default situation, it must assess whether the facts are sufficiently substantiated by evidence and whether the requested measures and orders are not prima facie unlawful or unfounded. The grounds for the injunction and measures that Claimant seeks in the Action, are the same as those it relied on in the PM proceedings ; Patent is therefore valid and infringed. the SoC largely reflects the facts and legal arguments Claimant submitted in the PM proceedings. In the PM proceedings the Court (provisionally) considered that the patent is more likely that not to be valid and infringed. The Court has no reason to assume in these proceedings on the merits, also given that there is no relevant defence to be considered, otherwise. The following measures requested are deemed disproportionate pursuant to Article 64(4) UPCA, The request of delivering up so as to remove and prevent entry into or movement within the channels of commerce is considered superfluous in view of the requested destruction . The request that the destruction of mushrooms is documented by the Defendant and in addition that the Claimant is given the opportunity to watch the destruction, is superfluous. The order will be drafted to clarify that documentation is only necessary in case Claimant decides not to attend the destruction. Damages (Article. 68 UPCA, Rule. 118 RoP). Defendant liable for damages  due to the infringement of the patent in the relevant UPC states.  In view of the absence of a defence, the Court establishes that Defendant knowingly infringed or at least had reasonable grounds to know that he would infringe the patent 

IPPT20251020, UPC CFI, CD Paris, Meril v Edwards Lifesciences
Patent maintained in amended form (Article 65 UPCA), direct infringement (Article 25 UPCA). No stay infringement action because of pending opposition proceedings (R. 295(a) RoP) Not requested by the parties; the proceedings are already at an advanced stage (oral hearing imminent),  would have the effect of postponing the decision on the infringement action – which is also ready to be decided – thereby frustrating the patent proprietor's interest in a swift protection of its exclusive right. Late filed ground of invalidity (R. 44 RoP) the issue concerning the added matter in claim 7 should have [been] filed with the statement for revocation as it constitutes a new and autonomous line of attack and, therefore, it must be excluded from the subject-matter of the proceedings. No late filed arguments in Rejoinder to the Reply to the Defence for revocation regarding skilled person and claim construction (R. 52 RoP). A generous standard is to be applied. Defendant allowed, in light of the principle of fairness, to raise new arguments, facts, and documents, insofar as they are considered capable of supporting their stances, which were already timely taken and disputed by the claimant. The admissibility of these late filed arguments extends also to arguments that, while not constituting a direct response to the defendant’s arguments, are closely related to them. No late filed new evidence: to contrast and react to arguments raised in the Defence to revocation (R. 44 RoP, R. 51 RoP) following the defence raised by the defendant, the claimant may need to produce new evidence which disputes the facts alleged by the claimant or the probative value of the evidence already filed in Court. Similarly, the defendant may submit new evidence in reaction to facts or evidence produced by the claimant in its reply. Claim construction (Article 69 EPC).Claimants’ interpretation of “outer skirt”  is inconsistent with the only detailed embodiment disclosed in the patent, wherein – see in particular Fig. 42 and para. [0063] – the suture line between the outer skirt (18) and the inner skirt (16) appears located (slightly) within the inner space defined by the frame. The definition of “slack” as implying excess material is disclosed in the patent and consistent with the general meaning of the term. Invalidity because of added subject matter in claim 4, 7 and 8 (Article 76(1) EPC, Article 138(1)(c) EPC) the invalidity ground based upon Art. 76 (1) ‘EPC’ is considered well founded and the intermediate generalization concerning the omission of the claimed valve being a “heart” one unallowable. Accordingly, the patent cannot be maintained in the form as granted. Filing of 17 Auxiliary Requests not ‘unreasonable’ (R. 30 RoP) considering the complexity of the case (in particular, the number of lines of attacks to the patent). The lack of a consistent interpretation of the expression ‘reasonable in number’ also suggests a less strict interpretation of this relevant provision. Inventive step (Article 56 EPC) For the assessment of the inventive step, a “holistic approach” – that is, a broader way of assessing non-obviousness by considering the invention as a whole, rather than just focusing upon isolated distinguishing features – appears, in general, to be more appropriate. Injunction is the normal remedy to restrain future infringements, but court has discretionary power to where it would be disproportionate or would be unreasonably detrimental to the public interest, including the interests of third parties (Article 63 UPCA, Article 3 Enforcement Directive).To justify a public interest in the availability of the infringing embodiment, it is essential to demonstrate that this is the sole available treatment method or that it represents an improvement upon a known treatment method, resulting in a notable enhancement in patient care. Therefore, excluding a certain product from the range of those available to doctors for the performance of certain procedures does not engage in itself a relevant public interest, because it does not necessarily carry with it the implication that, had the choice not been available, all the patients could not have been treated adequately with the remaining products.  

IPPT20251017, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, HP v Rentmeister
Preliminary Injunction granted (Article 62 UPCA, Rule 211 RoP, Rule 209 RoP). The application for provisional measures can be decided on the applicant’s submissions by a regular order in the PI proceedings . If the defendant does not lodge an objection within the time period set by the Court or decides not to substantiate its objection for reasons outside of the court proceedings, A decision by default  is not to be considered. (Rule 355.1(a) RoP). It is up to the defendant to decide whether to accept the invitation and lodge an objection. If the defendant declines the invitation, there is no reason to grant him the advantages of a decision by default.  It is more likely than not that the patent in suit is infringed by the offer and distribution of the challenged embodiments I by Defendant 1 (Rule 211.2 RoP).  On summary examination, the challenged embodiments I make direct and literal use of the technical teaching of the respective claim 13 of the patent in suit. Partial withdrawal of applicant’s claims for an interim award of costs allowed. (Rule 265 RoP , Article 69 UPCA)

IPPT20251017, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, Abbott Diabetes v Sinocare
Provisional injunction granted for UPC territory in view of the likelihood of infringement and validity (Article 62 UPCA, Article 25 UPCA, Article 34 UPCA,  R. 211(1)(b) RoP , Rule 206 RoP). Novelty (Article 54 EPC): None of the prior art documents disclose a single separate sensor assembly comprising all the features of claim 1. The prior art does not disclose a sharp as part of a sensor assembly as required by claim 1 of the patent. The sharp in the prior art is part of a separate sub-assembly . Inventive step (Article 56 EPC): It is not apparent how the skilled person, starting from any of the arrangements disclosed in the Dexcom patent family, would modify the parts disclosed therein to arrive at the sensor assembly of claim 1 and at the kit of claim 15 of the patent .There is no incentive to bring the sharp together with the other features required by claim 1 of the patent to yield the sensor assembly according to claim 1 prior to insertion, ensuring an easy-to use application of the on-body device. This would require a completely different insertion procedure into the user’s skin, with differently designed components, which is not suggested in the prior art at hand. In addition, the role of the anisotropic zebra is not disclosed, especially not as a seal enclosing the contacts portion of the sensor. Infringement (Article 25 UPCA): More likely than not that Defendants infringe the patent with their GlucoMen iCan. Defendants assert that the GlucoMen iCan does not use features 1.4 and 1.6 of the patent . These non-infringement arguments (only) hold if the limited interpretation of these features proposed by Defendants were followed. In view of the correct claim interpretation discussed above, these features are also met in the GlucoMen iCan. It is not disputed that features 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 and 1.5 are also present. The provisionally established infringement warrants a generally worded injunction. (Rule. 211 RoP) . Abbott explained convincingly that an injunction is necessary and urgent at this moment to avoid Defendants from (further) entering the reimbursement market and to avoid further sales via ‘cash pay’. A provisional injunction is deemed proportionate in view of the infringement. Defendants’ request to make the injunction subject to security is dismissed as is it not argued or demonstrated that there is a risk that Abbott will not or is unable to pay Defendants’ damages.The request to declare that the GlucoMen iCan is considered “goods suspected of infringing an intellectual property right”, is dismissed. Whatever the merits, such declaration is not possible as a provisional measure.
 

IPPT20251017, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Onward Medical v Niche Biomedical 
Provisional measures rejected. (Article 62 UPCA, Rule 206 RoP) . Auxiliary requests seeking provisional measures on amended versions of the patent rejected .(Rule 211 RoP, Rule 30 RoP). In view of the prior art, there are sufficient doubts as to whether claim 1 of the patent can be considered new and patentable under Article 54 EPC. Prior art “Yoo“ discloses a neuromodulation system for treating patients , preprogrammed stimulation data with a spatial component , and also preprogrammed stimulation patterns with spatial and temporal components. Amendment of claim wording : Alternative versions of claims are not subject to examination in injunction proceedings. Auxilliary requests in which, proceedings for interim relief are asserted on an alternative claim version that deviates from the granted version, to counter doubts about validity are generally to be rejected. If the patent proprietor considers it necessary to amend the wording of the claims of a patent, it means that the patent in its granted form is probably not valid. In this case, the court cannot normally be convinced of the validity of the patent in its granted form, which is solely decisive for the proceedings under Art. 62 UPCA . The question of whether a patent can remain valid in an amended version only arises, in the context of an action for revocation or a counterclaim for revocation, where requests for amendment of the patent are made pursuant to Rule 30 of the Rules of Procedure. Rule 30 is not applicable in proceedings for interim measures under Article 62 UPCA 
 

IPPT20251017, UPC CFI, LD Munich, AX Wireless v Xiaomi 
Extension of deadlines for the alignment of deadlines for Chinese and EU Defendants allowed. (Rule. 9.3(a) RoP) 

IPPT20251016, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, HP v Zuhai and Rentmeister
Good service of application for provisional measures upon Chinese defendant: credible demonstration of correct address (R. 275.2 RoP, R. 209.1(a) RoP). According to its wording, R. 275.2 RoP concerns the service of the statement of claim and, therefore, the proceedings on the merits. However, given the urgent nature of the application for provisional measures, the option to consider the steps already taken as good service must apply all the more so for the Defendant’s information about the application for provisional measures and its invitation to lodge an objection (R. 209.1(a) RoP). Applicant has sufficiently demonstrated that the provided address is correct. However, the Chinese authorities did not serve the application for provisional measures to this address. Instead, three and a half months after they had received the documents for service via the website provided by the Chinese authorities for this purpose, they only responded to an inquiry by stating without further explanation that the respondent did not exist at the provided address. This justifies considering the steps taken so far as proper service.

IPPT20251016, UPC CFI, CD Milan, Herbert Smith v Insulet & Eoflow 
Request for access to a redacted copy of Insulet Corporation's application granted. (Rule 262. (1)(b) RoP). Rule 262. (1)(b) RoP interpreted as being broadly aimed at the general disclosure of case documents and submissions, provided that the public interest is substantiated and the parties to the proceedings are not put at risk by such disclosure. The JR must, therefore, assess whether the public requesting access to the documents has a justified interest in accessing them. The "instrument" must not be used for purposes that exceed the reasons on which the request is based. If the Court did not mention certain documents in its final decision, they are also not useful to parties for a better understanding of the proceedings and access to them would be disproportionate and unreasonable.

IPPT20251015, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Leap Tools v Wizart 
Service of the Statement of claim at an alternative place permitted. (Rule. 275.1 RoP). There is a good reason to authorise service at the CEO’s business address in Poland, following 2 failed service attempts. 

IPPT20251015, UPC CFI, CD Milan, Insulet v EOFLow
Interim costs decision of CD Milan dated 22 July 2025 confirmed as final and binding decision. (Rule 150 RoP, Rule 151 RoP, Article 69 UPCA). Party requesting cost compensation must indicate exactly which cost item it is requesting payment for to allow the judge to carry out the review provided for in Rule 156 RoP  and Article 69 UPCA. Party must make a choice: submit the costs to the Court or keep them confidential and waive payment. Obscured costs cannot be settled. Costs relating to enforcement do not fall within the scope of Rule 151 RoP and must be excluded (Rule 151 RoP) Enforcement costs falls outside the jurisdiction of the UPC.  Rule 150 RoP does not allow for the compensation of costs incurred after the publication of the decision.

IPPT20251014, UPC CFI LD Düsseldorf, Wonderland v Cybex
Review of order confirms denial of the Claimant’s application for leave to amend the claim. (Rule 333.1 RoP, Rule 263 RoP). No arguments presented that would lead the Panel to reach a different conclusion . The Claimant seeks to claim infringement by equivalence for multiple features, this does not alter the nature or scope of the dispute and does not constitute an amendment of the case. 

IPPT20251014, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Ona v Ekahau
Request for Further exchanges of written pleadings dismissed. Written proceedings closed. (Rule 35 RoP, Rule 36 RoP) . Auxiliary requests relating to indirect infringement and the amended form of the patent concerning indirect infringement are not admissible and not taken into account. (Article. 26 UPCA).

IPPT20251013, UPC CFI, LD Paris, Vivo v Sun 
Request to postpone filing of the statement of defence under R. 19.6 RoP denied. No exceptional circumstances to slow down pace of main proceeding. 

 IPPT20251013, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Ona v Ekahau
Panel review of a Judge Rapporteur order on the holding of an interim conference: Request to hold interim conference dismissed. (Rule 333 RoP, R.105 RoP). No scope for a review : Order contains a declaration of intent and does not stipulate that there will be no interim conference. Claimant seeks a different outcome and is not alleging misuse of discretion. As the decision to hold an interim conference lies at the discretion of the Presiding Judge, acting on behalf of the Judge-Rapporteur, it is questionable whether the Panel can make the order instead of the Judge-Rapporteur, as the suggestion to conduct an interim conference is based on alleged new circumstances. No need to discuss the Claimant´s brief which was filed outside of any case management regime and time periods set by the Court. The Claimant cannot force the Court to schedule an interim conference by filing additional briefs and claiming them as reason for further oral discussion.

IPPT20251010, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Motorola v Asustek
Counterclaim for revocation of a divisional patent succesful , on grounds of the invalidity of claims; infringement action dismissed. (Article 138 EPC , Rule 25 RoP, Article 25 UPCA). Inadmissible extension of the subject matter of claims 1 and 11. The parent application does not disclose, either explicitly or implicitly, the features of a first and second reconfiguration message as they appear cumulatively in claims 1 and 11. The essential feature of the patent is not found in claims 1 and 11, either literally or in essence.

IPPT20251010, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, HL Display v Black Sheep Retail
(in)direct patent infringement (Article 25 UPCA); Revocation dismissed (Article 65 UPCA). Counterclaim for declaration of non-infringement inadmissible in the absence of a prior assertion of infringement with respect to Product 2. Such assertion may not be deduced from the mere fact that the patent was invoked with respect to a different product (R. 61.1 RoP). The relevant date here when all requirements of R.61.1 (a) and (b) should be fulfilled, is the launch of the counterclaim. Claim construction (Article 69 EPC) Claim not limited to one specific embodiment, in the absence of clear indications to the contrary. For example, under the section ‘detailed description of embodiments’ (plural) in the patent, par. [0047], clearly describes several embodiments. No added matter (Article 138(1)(c) EPC). Omission of the feature of a friction member, which has no inextricable link with the rest of the features of claim 1, does not add matter. Inventive step (Article 56 EPC) BSRP has not showed any hint in the prior art given to the skilled person towards the claimed solution and is not able to explain why the skilled person would make such modification. Infringement by equivalence as the protrusion is technically equivalent (Article 2, Interpretation Protocol). Also in case BSRP were followed and one would draw the borderline between the first and second arm differently so that the protrusion/rail that contains a stop surface in the BSRP Product is considered to be located on the second arm (see the Court’s drawings in 11.4.3), as BSRP maintains, this would amount to infringement by equivalence as the protrusion is technically equivalent.(In)direct infringement (Article 25 UPCA, Article 26 UPCA). When the shelf accessory and rear device are sold together this constitutes direct infringement. The fact that they are not sold in an assembled state, does not alter this view as they are nonetheless sold together as the system of claim 1. As to the shelf accessory or rear securing device sold separately, the Court opines that HL Display has sufficiently substantiated that both the shelf accessory and the rear securing device of the BSRP Product are means relating to essential elements of the invention. BSRP also does not deny that it knew or should have known that those means are suitable and intended for putting the invention of EP 351 into effect. Corrective measures (Article 64 UPCA). Recall and destruction are proportionate corrective measures to stop further infringement. The Court finds that a request for recall and destruction normally shall be granted, in order to effectively avoid further acts of infringement. It is for the infringer to present facts and proof of any circumstances, e.g. based on proportionality, justifying that the Court dismiss the request or concludes that it is sufficient to amend the infringing goods. Liability for damages (Article 68 UPCA) HL Display is deemed to have a sufficient interest in a declaration of infringement and liability for compensation of damages. Order to communicate information (Article 67 UPCA, R. 191 RoP) This means inter alia that the claimant also has a right to information needed to verify the information and to calculate the damage. 

IPPT20251007, UPC CFI, LD Milan, Hypertherm v TecMo
Final decision order adopted on recommendation of the judge rapporteur. No need to adjudicate on the claims, proceedings dismissed.
(Rule 363 RoP, Rule 360 RoP, Rule 220 (1) (a) RoP)

IPPT20251007, UPC CFI, LD Brussels, Cretes v Hyler
Settlement confirmed by the Court (R. 365.1 RoP). 

IPPT20251002, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Hurom v NUC Electronics
Preliminary objection admissible (R. 19.7 RoP) due to the primacy of Union law, the objections against international jurisdiction are not precluded by R. 19.7 RoP.  The court has jurisdiction to hear the case against the Korean defendant regarding Poland, Spain and the United Kingdom in accordance with Art. 71b (2), Art. 7 (2) Brussels Ia Reg.) Defendant infringes upon the patent-in-suit in Poland, Spain and the United Kingdom (Article 25 UPCA)  by shipping attacked embodiments to Poland, Spain and the United Kingdom via its subsidiary NUC Electronics Europe GmbH and its distributor Warmcook, which both were shipping attacked embodiments to Poland, Spain and the United Kingdom and have their place of business in and acting from the UPC territory.  Warmcook’s French web page from the French web shop states in general terms that Warmcook ships products to all EU member states and the United Kingdom (alongside Switzerland and French overseas territories). The fact that Warmcook’s website uses the French language and Euro as currency does not alter the fact that the website itself states shipments to said countries outside France. NUC Electronics Europe GmbH is undisputedly the European sales branch of defendant, and the importer according to the CE mark and the equivalent UK mark on the nameplate of the test purchase (exhibit P14), designating NUC Electronics Europe GmbH as the relevant importer for the EU and the UK respectively. Jurisdiction over non-EU defendant for infringement in the EU member states Poland and Spain as well as in the Non-EU member state United Kingdom follows from Art. 71b (2), Art. 7 (2) Brussels Ia Reg. Since the UPC as a common court has no national law within the meaning of Art. 6 Brussels Ia Reg., Art. 71b (2) Brussels Ia Reg. stipulates that, where a defendant is not domiciled in a member state of the European Union, and the regulation does not otherwise confer jurisdiction over him, Chapter II of the Brussels Ia Reg. (i.e. Art. 4 to 35) shall apply as appropriate regardless of defendant’s domicile. The necessary international element of the legal relationship in question can result from its link to another EU member state or to a third state.  The ECJ’s ruling in BSGH Hausgeräte also applies in cases in which jurisdiction follows from article 7(2) BR.  Substantive scope of Article 7(2) BR. The place of the event giving rise to the damage, as far as a registered intellectual property right is concerned, is not restricted to the country in which the right is registered. The proximity to the place where the action controlling the events takes place typically facilitates the gathering of evidence and the conduct of proceedings. The option to choose the place where the acts are committed that give rise to the damage to bring an action is not excluded. The UPC has jurisdiction for acts committed before the UPCA’s entry into force on 1 June 2023 (Article 32(1) UPCA). The competence of the Local Division Mannheim follows from Art. 33 (1) (a), sentence 3 UPCA. Claimant states an infringement inter alia in Germany.

IPPT20251002, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Centripetal Limited v Palo Alto Networks
Review proceedings concerning an ex–parte order (Sasie order) for preservation of evidence. (Rule 197 RoP). Order dated 3 June 2025, in the amended form of Order dated 9 July 2025 revoked for confidentiality measures. The inspection is not limited to data being physically stored at the premises , it also extends to data which is accessible from there as long as such access is available as part of the ordinary business being carried out at such a location. A defendant cannot be compelled to bring a physical item which is not there yet , to the inspected premises , even though the applicant thought it was there. Inspection had been executed on a solid and sound ex ante presumption, that the item to be inspected may well be found at the location detailed in the order, but it turned out upon execution that the item was not there. The legal and factual situation after granting the Defendant its right to be heard justifies a revocation of the Saisie order as it could not have been granted, if these circumstances had been taken into consideration beforehand. It is based on a manifestly wrong construction of R. 192.3 RoP to believe that the duty to inform the Court of all relevant facts was a one-off duty and that there was no reason to update the Court on new facts and arguments, which might still influence the Court in its decision to grant or not to grant the Saisie order. 

IPPT20251002, UPC CFI, LD Dusseldorf, Headwater v Samsung
Rectification of decision pursuant to R. 353 RoP . On its own motion, the Court rectifies paragraph 6 of the order in the decision of 29 September 2025 because it contains a clerical error and a calculation error. 
 

IPPT20251001, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Robert Bosch v Grizzly Tools

Oppositions challenging jurisdiction of the UPC dismissed , No appeal permitted. (Article 4(1) , Article 63(1) , Art. 71b (1) Brussels Regulation). For establishing international jurisdiction under Article 4(1) of the Brussels  Regulation, it is sufficient to demonstrate that the defendant is domiciled within the meaning of that provision, possibly in conjunction with Article 63(1) of the Brussels Regulation, in the EU Member State of the court seised. In the case of a joint court of EU Member States, Art. 71b (1) Brussels  Regulation suffices to demonstrate that the seat is in one of the states of establishment of the joint court. No decision on the obligation to bear the associated costs is necessary as the objection pursuant to Rule 19 RoP is an internal procedural remedy and cannot bring about a decision on the merits. 

IPPT20251001, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Hoffmann-La Roche v Menarini
Confidentiality club (R.262A RoP ) for information regarding manufacturing process of challenged embodiments, negotiations with manufacturer, prices, expected profits and written testimony.