2025 UPC February

IPPT20250228, UPC CFI, CD Paris, NJOY v Juul Labs
Patent maintained in amended form (Article 65 UPCA). A generous standard is to be applied to late filed facts or evidence (R. 32 RoP, R. 52 RoP). An argument which may be considered a further reaching response to the other party’s previously raised argument is to be admitted. Added matter (Article 138(1)(c) UPCA). Claimant has shown that there are differences between the basis of disclosure relied upon by the Defendant and the granted claim 1 that are to be considered for the patent to contain subject matter that extends beyond the content of the application as filed. As a consequence, it is Defendant’s burden of proof to show, that all the changes made to what he considers as a generic disclosure basis for granted claim 1 (the changes made to claim 159) do not result in the skilled person being presented with information which is not directly and unambiguously derivable from that previously presented by the application, even when account is taken of matter which is implicit to a person skilled in the art.

IPPT20250228, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Esko v XSYS
Application to add The Netherlands to the list of countries for which a declaration of infringement is requested rejected a late filed (R. 263.2(a) RoP). It would have been possible to request the inclusion of the Netherlands in the action by mid-December 2024 instead of 17 January 2025

IPPT20250228, UPC CFI, CD Munich, UPM-Kymmene v Virdia
Substitution of registered proprietor (R. 42.2 RoP) by the Rule 8.5 RoP proprietor

IPPT20250227, UPC CFI, RD Nordic-Baltic, Fapa Vital v Valentis Baltic
Withdrawal of application for provisional measures by party consent (R. 265 RoP) and reimbursement of Court fees (R. 370.9 RoP by analogy)

IPPT20250227, UPC CFI, CD Milan, SharkNinja v Dyson 
Withdrawal of revocation action by party consent (R. 265 RoP).

IPPT20250226, UPC CFI, LD Paris, NJ Diffusion v Gisela Mayer
No security for costs (R. 158 RoP). In view of the positive financial situation of NJ DIFFUSION and in view of the estimated amount of the costs likely to be recovered, there is no evidence of a risk that the claimant will be unable to pay this sum - or even encounter difficulties in doing so - if she is ordered to reimburse the defendant's costs. Order is a case management order, which is not subject to appeal but subject to panel review (R. 333 RoP)

IPPT20250226, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Hereaeus v Vibrantz
Rectification of order of 2 December 2024 by inserting an order corresponding to the grounds, which was simply overlooked (R. 353 RoP). Court exercises discretion to postpone decision on absolute bar to proceeding with counterclaim for revocation against the German part of the patent because of a decision by the Bundespatentgericht until after main hearing of 1 July 2025 since both parties do not want to jeopardize the main hearing (R. 362 RoP, R. 363 RoP).

IPPT20250226, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Grundfos v Hefei
No further exchange of written pleadings allowed (R. 36 RoP) because of decision of the State Intellectual Property Office in Beijing of 6 January 2025 declaring the Chinese patent CN201480013981 invalid. There are no apparent reasons as to why the request to grant the opportunity to submit a further written statement was not submitted until more than six weeks after the decision of the State Intellectual Property Office. 

IPPT20250225, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Panasonic v Xiaomi
Reimbursement of 40% instead of 60% of court fees after withdrawal (R. 370.9 RoP). Left open whether formal notification by the court of the conclusion of the written proceedings is decisive or whether it is sufficient that all pleadings have already been exchanged in accordance with Rule 12.1 RoP and that, in this respect, the written proceedings are de facto concluded (as in this case) (R. 370.9(b)(i) RoP) (see also Local Chamber Mannheim, order of 4 February 2025, UPC_CFI_223/2023). The decisive factor in the proceedings to be assessed here is that this is an extremely complex patent infringement dispute, which the parties have also conducted very intensively until the withdrawal of the action and the counterclaims and which has therefore caused an exceptionally high, far above average amount of work on the part of the court (R. 370.9(e) RoP). 

IPPT20250225, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Hand Held Products v Scandit
Order setting out decisions taken at interim conference (R. 105.5 RoP)

IPPT20250224, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Bruker v 10x Genomics & Nanostring
Proceedings for costs incurred (€ 337.431,50) following appeal in summary proceedings (Article 69 UPCA, R. 150 RoP, R. 151 RoP). Application for a cost decision admissible following a decision on costs (R. 242.1 RoP) by the Court of Appeal in proceedings for interim measures (summary proceedings). Application filed in due time, given extension of the one month period for filing the application as granted by judge-rapporteur (R. 151.1 RoP). The determination of the costs for summary proceedings in cost proceedings is final and is limited to costs claimed within the one month time period.
 

IPPT20250224, UPC CoA, Biolitec v Light Guide
Unsuccessful appeal of rejection of provisional injunction changing the status quo on the market. Provisional measures require that proceedings on the merits – which offer more procedural safeguards – cannot be awaited (Article 62 UPCA, R. 206 RoP, R. 211 RoP). The requested measures would change the status quo on the market, established years before the grant of the patent. Appellant has not demonstrated that provisional measures are necessary to protect its current market share or prices or for any other purpose that cannot await a decision on the merits. Late filed price erosion argument and auxiliary request covering alleged infringed acts at 2025 trade fair (R. 222.2 RoP). Biolitec has not justified why the argument on price erosion could not reasonably have been raised during the proceedings before the Court of First Instance.

IPPT20250221, UPC CoA, Hanshow v Vusion

Application for default judgment dismissed (R. 357 RoP). The application for leave to appeal against a cost decision is considered to be a Statement of appeal and a statement of grounds for appeal (R. 221 RoP, R. 224 RoP). An application for the determination of costs is a summary procedure, decided in the first instance by the judge-rapporteur (R. 156.2 RoP) and in appeal by the standing judge (R. 221.4 RoP). The application always requires leave to appeal and there is no obligation for the standing judge to hear the other party before allowing the appeal. The application for leave to appeal under R. 221 RoP must already set out the grounds on which the appeal is based. Court fees in case of a granted leave to appeal against cost decision. If a party applies for permission to appeal against a decision on costs, it pays a court fee of € 1.500. If the appeal is allowed, the fee originally paid will not apply, but a fee of € 3.000 will be charged for an appeal against a costs order

IPPT20250221, UPC CFI, LD Hamburg, Teleflex Life Sciences v Speed Care
Application for provisional measures dismissed (Article 62(2) UPCA, R. 209 RoP). On summary examination, the Court finds that it is not more likely than not that the attacked embodiment makes direct and literal use of the technical teaching of the patent in suit protected by patent claim 1, (Art. 62 (4) UPCA, R. 211.2 RoP. The burden of presentation and proof for facts allegedly establishing the entitlement to initiate proceedings and the infringement or imminent infringement of the patent, as well as any other circumstances allegedly supporting the Applicant's request, lies with the Applicant, (Article 54 UPCA, R. 13 RoP) whereas, […] the burden of presentation and proof for facts concerning the lack of validity of the patent and other circumstances allegedly supporting the Defendant's position lies with the Defendant. Claim interpretation (Article 69 EPC). Additionally, the skilled person is taking the purpose of every patent claim into account, to provide the average person skilled in the art with a technical teaching which, when reworked, leads to the intended success of the invention.

IPPT20250219, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Swarco v Yunex - I
Order to preserve evidence and inspect premises has become devoid of purpose due to Swarco Futurit’s factual assertation being undisputed by Yunex (Article 60 UPCA, R. 360 RoP). The proceedings to secure evidence are a dependent part of the main proceedings. In the subsequent main proceedings, Yunex is precluded from making a first substantiated denial of identity or counter-evidence.

IPPT20250219, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Swarco v Yunex - II
Access to the file granted to Chainzone, intervening party in the proceedings before the Local Division Vienna (R. 262 RoP)

IPPT20250219, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Nokia v Sunmi
Ex parte anti-anti-suit-injunction (Article 62(5) UPCA). Anti-suit and anti-enforcement injunctions violate the rights to justice; they constitute unlawful interference with the applicant's property-like right (Munich Local Chamber, order of 9 December 2024, CFI_755/2024 – Avago/Realtek). Imminent infringement of a patent holder’s right (Article 62(1) UPCA, R. 211 RoP). An infringement of a patent holder's right is imminent within the meaning of Article 62(1) EPC if the infringement has not yet occurred but there are serious and tangible factual indications, based on specific circumstances, that the respondent will engage in unlawful conduct in the near future. The infringing act must be clearly discernible. It must only depend on the respondent's intention whether the final step to commence the infringement is taken. This depends on the circumstances of the individual case. Special circumstances speak against providing security (R. 211.5 RoP). Difficulties of service in the People’s Republic of China and service at EuroCis trade fair which end the next day
 

IPPT20250219, UPC CFI, LD Hamburg, Lionra v Cisco
Infringement claim and counterclaim for revocation unfounded. The indirect and direct infringement action is unfounded (Article 25 UPCA, Article 26 UPCA). The indirect patent infringement of claim 1 of the patent in suit alleged by the plaintiff pursuant to Art. 26 (1) UPCA does not exist. In any case, there is no literal realisation of feature 1. b) and feature group 1. c) aa-bb by the attacked embodiments. Accordingly, there is also no direct infringement of claim 6 pursuant to Art. 25 UPCA. Claim construction (Article 69 EPC). Interpretation of a patent whose purpose is to overcome the time delay, known as latency, in the processing of data packets and, in particular, headers during transmission in a wireless network. The description and drawings must always be consulted as explanatory aids for interpreting the patent claim and not only used to resolve any ambiguities in the patent claim. However, this does not mean that the patent claim merely serves as a guideline and that its subject matter also extends to what, after examination of the description and drawings, appears to be the protection sought by the patent proprietor. Unsuccessful rebuttal of presumption of ownership (R. 8.5 RoP). The assertion that the purchase price may not have been paid is pure speculation in light of the fact that the transfer was registered on 16 March 2023. Application to amend the patent (R. 30 RoP) A necessity to submit "complete" sets of claims cannot be derived from the UPCA or its Rules of Procedure. Insofar as the defendants have requested in their reply that further prior art be admitted as an extension of the counterclaim, this request must be granted: the plaintiff has changed its interpretation and the allegation of infringement in the Reply in the infringement proceedings compared to the statement of claim, or at least supplemented itsince the plaintiff has changed its interpretation. Inventive step (Article 56 EPC). An invention exists if it does not result from the usual approach of the person skilled in the art, but requires an additional creative effort on their part.

IPPT20250219, UPC CFI, LD Paris, ArcelorMittal v XPeng
Posco granted access to Statement of claim and related exhibits concerning claim construction in pending infringement action (R. 262 RoP) to analyse the Claimant’s claim interpretation, which is immediately relevant for the validity discussion in the parallel opposition appeal

IPPT20250219, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Maxeon Solar v Aiko Energy
Statutory time limit extended with one week (instead of requested three) until 3 March 2025 (R. 9 RoP) because the Chinese New Year holidays also fell within the relevant time limits and either the representatives or the employees of the Defendants’ 1), 2) and 4) parent company in China were unavailable for a significant period of time.

IPPT20250219, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, Mammoet v P.T.S.
Confidentiality club extension after ex parte preservation of evidence (R. 262A RoP). Four natural persons of Mammoet are granted access to written report. Defendant has chosen not to appoint a representative in these proceedings. It has not requested confidentiality of the Written Report nor of any of the Attachments

IPPT20250219, UPC CoA, NTS v Audi
Release of security (R. 352 RoP) applied by way of analogy after applications for withdrawal of the infringement action were submitted at the Munich LD

IPPT20250219, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Dyson v SharkNinja
Withdrawal of proceedings by party consent (R. 265 RoP)

IPPT20250219, UPC CoA, Aarke v Sodastream
Withdrawal of appeal – no cost decision requested – reimbursement of costs. R. 265.1 RoP also applies mutatis mutandis to the withdrawal of an appeal. 

IPPT20250218, UPC CFI, CD Paris, Aylo Premium v Dish Technologies 
Security for costs can also be applied for by claimant (R. 158 RoP). R. 158.1 RoP provides that, at the request by “one party” the Court may order “the other party” to provide adequate security for the legal costs and other expenses incurred by the requesting party, which the other party may be liable to bear. Request rejected. Claimant has not shown to the conviction of the Court that Defendant will not be able to pay the litigation costs if it should lose the lawsuit.

IPPT20250217, UPC LD Munich, Edwards v Meril
Application for rectification of decision of 15 November 2024 partly unfounded (R. 353 RoP). “Obvious slips” within the meaning of R. 353 RoP are all incorrect or incomplete statements of what the Court actually intended in the order or decision. In other words, the declaration of the Court’s intention in the decision or order must deviate from the intention that existed when the decision was made 

IPPT202450217, UPC CFI, RD Nordic-Baltic, Imbox v Brunngard
Joint legal costs of € 38.000 after withdrawal of application for provisional measures (Article 69 UPCA, R. 152 RoP). Since the value of the proceeding is set in relation to the whole proceeding (not in relation to each defendant) and the decision by the Administrative Committee clearly states the ceilings shall apply “regardless of the number of parties”, the Court concludes that this legal framework must be understood to mean that when an application against several defendants is dismissed, the ceiling serves as a joint ceiling for all defendants’ representation costs. 

IPPT20250217, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Per Aarsleff v IMS Robotics
Withdrawal of action by party consent (R. 265 RoP).

IPPT20250217, UPC CFI, LD Paris, Seoul Viosys v Laser Components
Order setting out decisions taken at interim conference (R. 105.5 RoP).

IPPT20250215, UPC CFI, CD Milan, Eoflow v Insulet
The costs of a preliminary injunction must be settled at the same time as the decision on the merits (Article 69 UPCA, R. 150 RoP) since the outcome of the preliminary phase must be considered in the framework of the overall settlement of litigation costs; cost compensation cannot be parcelled out according to the outcome of the various stages of the case but must relate to the final decision on the case as a whole. The outcome of the preliminary phase concerning the application for a preliminary injunction, therefore, does not give rise to an award of costs if the filing of an application for preliminary measures has already been followed or is to be followed by proceedings on the merits

IPPT20250214, UPC CoA, Abbott v Sibio
Impugned order revoked (Article 75 UPCA) – provisional measures granted (Article 62 UPCA). Claim interpretation (Article 69 EPC). As a general principle of interpretation, means-plus-function features must be understood as any feature suitable for carrying out the function. As an exception to the mentioned general principle, where the function is carried out by a computer or similar apparatus, the means-plus-function features are interpreted as means adapted to carry out the respective steps/functions. Not more likely than not that the patent contains added matter (Article 138(c) EPC). Urgent interest (R. 209.2(b) RoP). Weighing of interest; irreparable harm (Article 60(5) UPCA; Article 62(2) UPCA). No limitation of injunction to specific infringing products (Article 62(1) UPCA).  No leave to change claim for the first time in appeal to cover the territory of Ireland (R. 263.2(a) RoP). Measures mentioned in Article 67 UPCA may also be ordered in the framework of provisional measure proceedings, always provided that there is an urgent interest and such measures are proportionate (Article 62 UPCA). No security for enforcement (R. 352.1 RoP). Not substantiated why serious difficulties would be expected in connection with the recovery of any possible damages from Abbott 

IPPT20250214, UPC CFI, LD Munich, GXD-Bio v Myriad
Preliminary objection rejected (R. 19 RoP) Defendants have not raised any of the grounds set out in the exhaustive list of Rule 19.1 RoP. […] the grounds put forward by the Defendants 1-8 in support of their preliminary objection do not appear to concern the Court's jurisdiction and competence under Article 32 UPCA, but only the question of the Claimant's standing to bring an action and/or the question of whether the Claimant has acquired substantive ownership of the claims it has asserted.

IPPT20250212, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Ona v Apple
Procedural order specifying confidential information (R. 262 RoP)

IPPT20250212, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Syngenta v Sumi Agro
Procedural order preparing for interim conference (R. 103 RoP)

IPPT20250212, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Biolitec v Light Guide
Local Division Munich has jurisdiction in spite of pending appeal (Article 33(2) UPCA, R. 19 RoP). The action for interim measures […] was already pending before the Court of Appeal on 19 September 2024. Consequently, on 20 November 2024, the date on which the present infringement action was brought, no action was pending between the same parties on the same patent before another division of the Court of First Instance.

IPPT20250212, UPC CoA, Daedalus v Xiaomi
Confidentiality club membership rules (R. 262A RoP); number of persons and personal traits. Pursuant to R. 262A.6 RoP the number of persons to whom access is restricted shall be no greater than necessary in order to ensure compliance with the rights of the parties to the legal proceedings to an effective remedy and to a fair trial, and shall include, at least, one natural person from each party and the respective lawyers or other representatives of those parties to the legal proceedings. Whether a particular person may be granted full access under this provision must be determined on the basis of the relevant circumstances of the case, including the role of that person in the proceedings before this Court, the relevance of the confidential information to the performance of that role and the trustworthiness of the person in keeping the information confidential. R. 262A.6 RoP does not require that the person to whom access is given be an employee of a party or a representative within the meaning of Art. 48 of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court (hereinafter: UPCA). Such a requirement does not follow from the wording of the provision and would unduly restrict a party’s freedom to choose its assistants in the proceedings. Therefore, the fact that the US attorneys are neither employees of Daedalus, nor representatives within the meaning of Art. 48 UPCA, does not preclude them from having full access to the confidential information under R. 262A RoP. 

IPPT20250212, UPC CoA, Meril v SWAT Medical
Duty to be represented (Article 48 UPCA, R. 8 RoP). Late filed objection. Meril GmbH did not make this objection before the Central Division or in its Statement of appeal and grounds of appeal. The Court of Appeal disregards this submission. (R. 226 RoP and R. 222.2 RoP). Representation is a point of admissibility involving public policy considerations (due process) which the Court may examine at any time, also of its own motion. When a matter such as this is raised by the Court, there can be reason, depending on the circumstances, to provide the party with an opportunity to appoint a representative. Lawyers and European Patent Attorneys are not exempted from the duty to be represented if they themselves are parties in cases before the UPC. Consequently, the fact that Respondent 1 is an authorised representative himself does not relieve him from the requirement of being represented. Respondent 1 is Chair of the Board of directors of SWAT Medical. He holds a high-level management position within SWAT Medical and cannot represent the company. It follows that Respondent 1 is not allowed to represent SWAT Medical. 

IPPT20250211, UPC CFI, LD Helsinki, AIM Sport v Supponor
Rule 263 RoP application allowed after appeal but prior to filing of Statement of Defence. Amendments to the case must be explained in R. 263 application but can be detailed in an appendix. Adding new defendant and adding Germany and Spain allowed: procedural economy and aim to avoid the risk of irreconcilable and inconsistent decisions favours allowing adding a party at this stage. The latter also concerns situations should the case be initiated in another court and hence favours the acceptance of a new party. (R. 305 RoP). Unconventional situation, were the case re-starts and the front loaded nature of UPC procedure is protected.

IPPT20250211, UPC CoA, Suinno v Microsoft
Acting as a representative (Article 48 UPCA) of a legal person not possible for a corporate representative of a legal person, or any other natural person who has extensive administrative and financial powers within the legal person. If the party is a natural person, the representation requirement under Art. 48(1) and (2) UPCA implies that this person is not entitled to represent him or herself. This understanding is based on the term “representation” used in Art. 48(1) and (2) UPCA and the concept of rights and immunities of representatives. Independent representation. One of the objectives of parties being represented by a lawyer is, among other things, to ensure that legal persons are defended by a representative who is sufficiently distant from the legal person which he or she represents. The independent exercise of the duties of a representative is not undermined by the mere fact that the lawyer or the European patent attorney, qualified as a representative under Art. 48(1) or (2) UPCA, is employed by the party he or she represents. A representative who is employed by a party must also act towards the Court as an independent counsellor by serving the interests of his or her clients in an unbiased manner without regard to his or her personal feelings or interests.

IPPT20250210, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Phoenix v ILME
IPPT20250210, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Esko v XSYS
Preliminary objection admissible, but unfounded (R. 19 RoP). The UPC's has jurisdiction relating to a European patent that has not yet lapsed at the time of entry into force of the UPCA pursuant to Art. 32(1)(a) UPCA, Art. 2g), Art. 3c) UPCA and covers infringement actions to the extent that they are based on acts of use which are alleged to have taken place before the UPCA entered into force and/or in the period between an opt-out and the withdrawal thereof (Article 84 UPCA). Jurisdiction and applicable law are separate aspects that must be assessed separately. It cannot be concluded from the UPC's jurisdiction that the UPCA always applies to every case to be decided, nor is the applicable law decisive for the UPC's jurisdiction (Article 24 UPCA, Article 32 UPCA).

IPPT20250210, UPC CFI, LD Munich, BSN Medical v Brightwake
Court confirmed confidential settlement ((R. 365 RoP). Each party bearing its own costs

IPPT20250210, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Dolby v Asus
Withdrawal of action by party consent (R. 265 RoP).

IPPT20250210, UPC CFI, LD Munich, SSAB v Tiroler Rohre
Reasonable and proportionate legal costs of € 84.033,76 after withdrawn application for interim measures (Article 69 UPCA). No reason to object to that a team of one attorney-at-law and two patent attorneys was used to represent the two applicants. Verifiable objections required if the applicants list the individual activities with corresponding time specifications in their application for the determination of costs, it is up to the defendant to object to these items in detail, as has also been done here to some extent.

IPPT20250208, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Ericsson v Motorola
Rule-262A-Application is unfounded. There is no reason to exclude Lenovo (Motorola) or individuals at Lenovo (Motorola) from Lenovo’s (Motorola’s) own information.

IPPT20250207, UPC CFI, LD Milan, Dainese v Alpinestars
Active case management (R. 9 RoP, R. 332 RoP): the parties are invited to submit a – possibly joint - request for the alignment of future procedural deadlines

IPPT20250206, UPC LD Mannheim, Panasonic v Oppo
R. 262A RoP: Final redacted version of decision of 22 November 2024 with party agreement

IPPT20250205, UPC LD Paris, Hurom v NUC
New arguments on infringement in Rejoinder by Hurom are inadmissible as not addressing matters raised in the Reply (R. 32(3) RoP). Hurom’s request for further exchange of written pleadings allowed because of new arguments raised by defendants (R. 36 RoP) without affecting the timeframe of the proceedings (Interim Conference is scheduled for 11 March 2025).

IPPT20250205, UPC LD Munich, Ericsson v Motorola
A preliminary objection can also be raised with regard to a counterclaim for revocation (R. 19 RoP). Since a preliminary objection is allowed for a revocation claim under R. 48 RoP, there is no good reason why the same cannot be true for a counterclaim for revocation. No jurisdiction for the counterclaim which is brought twice before the same division. Art. 33 (2) UPCA must be interpreted in such a way that this provision is not only applicable if an action between the same parties on the same patent is brought before several different divisions, but equally if an action between the same parties on the same patent is brought twice before the same division.

IPPT20250205, UPC LD Munich, Edwards v Meril
Parties are summoned to oral hearing on 11 Feb 2025 (R 115 RoP)

IPPT20250204, UPC LD Mannheim, Panasonic v Xiaomi
Withdrawal of action by party consent (R. 265 RoP). Reimbursement of 40% (instead of 60%) of court fees  after closure of the written procedure (R. 370.9(b) RoP) The fact that the written procedure was not formally completed by clicking the button provided on the CMS workflow does not change this as the procedure was announced to have been completed months earlier.

IPPT20250203, UPC LD Düsseldorf, Maxeon v Aiko 
Addition of persons to confidentiality club (R. 262A RoP). No reason not to include independent patent consultant for Maxeon Solar and involved in all patent matters. He provides support in the preparation of written submissions and thus requires unrestricted access to all the revenue, profit and sales figures. The fact that Mr. […] is not an employee of the Claimant or an affiliated company, but an independent consultant, does not in itself justify denying him access per se. It may be that the Claimant does not have authority to instruct him. However, he is also subject to the confidentiality order. In the event of a breach of this order, a penalty payment may be imposed on him. No reason to grant Ms […] a lawyer and Chinese patent agent representing Maxeon Solar in licensing matters […] separate access to this information. If, as indicated by the Claimant, she is involved in the proceedings and all decisions in the parallel Mannheim proceedings as well as in the UPC proceedings are coordinated with her, the Claimant's representatives are free to include her in their legal team, although they would then also be liable for any breaches of the confidentiality order by Ms […]. 

IPPT20250203, UPC LD Mannheim, Panasonic v Xiaomi
Withdrawal of action by party consent (R. 265 RoP). Reimbursement of 20% of court fees (R. 370.9(b) RoP)

IPPT20250203, UPC LD Mannheim, Panasonic v Oppo
Withdrawal of action by party consent (R. 265 RoP). No reimbursement of court costs as the application was made after the final decision closing the oral proceedings (R. 370.9(b) RoP)