UPC Court of First Instance - 2025 - 1st quarter

IPPT20250331, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Jingao v Chint
Leave to change claim following amendment of patent in opposition proceedings (R. 263 RoP, R. 30 RoP). Rule 30 RoP not restricted to amendments directly related to the grounds for invalidity asserted in the counterclaim for revocation, but may also not be directly related to the grounds for invalidity arising from the counterclaim. If dependent patent claims are made the subject of auxiliary requests within an application it must also be possible for the patentee to make corresponding amendments with regard to the infringement action. Synchronisation proceedings proceedings before the UPC with those before the EPO can only work if it is possible to introduce claim versions amended by the EPO into (infringement) proceedings before the UPC (R. 295(a) RoP, R. 30 RoP)

IPPT20250331, UPC CFI, CD Paris, BMW v ITCiCo Spain
Rectification is limited to errors (R. 353 RoP) consisting of a mere oversight by the judge which has resulted in the non-expression or inaccurate expression of a judgment that was, however, already formed and can be inferred from the context of the ruling. Errors that constitute the expression of a lacking or at least deficient judgment do not fall into this category. Costs incurred by successful party regarding application to set aside a decision by default (R. 356 RoP) are to be claimed in separate proceedings for a cost decision (R. 150 RoP). 

IPPT20250328, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Nichia v Endrich
Confirmation of settlement (R. 365 RoP). Registrar is to reimburse of the plaintiff 60% of the court fees (R. 370(9)(c)(i) RoP)
 

IPPT20250327, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Dish v Aylo
Decision on conditional request to communicate information by a third party postponed, unless it is admissible in any case on the condition that the requested information is relevant to the decision  (R. 191 RoP). Postponed decision on the third party's application for access to the file (R. 262 RoP).

IPPT20250327, UPC CFI, CD Milan, Zentiva v Abbott
Identity of “factual and legal elements”  does not create a legal interest to intervene (R 313.1 RoP). Res judicata occurs only between the parties who participate in the proceedings. A decision in the present proceedings would not be res judicata in any proceedings brought by ZENTIVA against anyone

IPPT20250326, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Panasonic v Oppo
Access initially limited to Statement of claim, Statements of defence and counterclaims and Reply to Statement of defence and Rejoinder to the Reply (R. 262 RoP) due to extensive case file, large number of errors in CMS and system errors and associated effort

IPPT20250326, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Sanofi v Stadapharm
Medac’s application for access withdrawn (R. 262 RoP) as well as Exhibit 2 (a privileged and confidential letter from Sanofi to Medac) withdrawn as no party raised concerns. Withdrawal Exhibit 2 based on R. 262A.1 RoP and subject to periodic penalty payment for Medac and Stada

IPPT20250326, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Otec v Steros
Ex parte order to preserve evidence and inspection at trade fair in Cologne (R. 192 RoP, R. 199 RoP). Demonstrable risk of evidence being destroyed (R. 197.1 RoP) As the applicant has explained in a comprehensible manner, there is a serious risk that the ‘DLyte 1D’ and ‘DLyte 100D’ will be removed from the exhibition grounds at short notice or that individual polishing processes pre-programmed by the first respondent will be deactivated by means of a software update. This could result in the loss of evidence that could be used to confirm the infringement. Due to the special market conditions already described in detail, it would be virtually impossible for the applicant to obtain evidence of the infringement of the patent in question by the aforementioned products. No security ordered in this specific case (R. 196.6 RoP)

IPPT20250324, UPC CFI, LD Paris, Tiru v Maguin
Review dismissed of ex parte order to preserve evidence and inspect premises subject to confidentiality club disclosure terms (R. 197.4 RoP). No breach of duty to disclose any known material facts (R. 192.3 RoP): Patent holder cannot be required, at the stage of the application for preservation of evidence, to respond in advance to possible attacks on the validity of the patent, without prejudice, at the stage of the substantive proceedings, to discussing and deciding on a possible application for revocation of the patent. No demonstrable risk of destruction of evidence (Article 60.5 UPCA) because of the mere digital format of the data but to ensure the effectiveness of the simultaneous  measures at the site of the manufacturer and that of the operator of the allegedly infringing oven. No lack of urgency (R. 194.2 RoP): a two-month period to prepare the application for preservation of evidence appears reasonable, as the applicant for seizure is required under Article 60.1 UPCA to present reasonably accessible evidence to support its allegations that its patent has been infringed or that infringement is imminent.

IPPT20250321, UPC CFI, LD Paris, IMC V Mul-T-Lock
Preliminary objection to UPC jurisdiction regarding Spanish, Swiss and UK designations of European patent rejected (Article 4  and article 24  kBrussels Ibis regulation. Article 31 UPCA, R 20 RoP). The UPC therefore has jurisdiction to hear the infringement action brought by IMC Créations in respect of the Spanish and Swiss parts, if necessary, by staying the proceedings pending the decision of the national court hearing the action for invalidity, if there was a significant risk that the patent would be invalidated by the court of the State in which the patent was granted. The UPC also has jurisdiction to hear the infringement action brought regarding the British part of the patent and, where appropriate, to rule on the validity of the title, provided that the decision on the plea of invalidity of the patent has only inter partes effect.

IPPT20250321, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Hand Held Products v Scandit
Withdrawal of action by party consent (R. 265 RoP) before closure of the written procedure. No cost decision requested. 60% reimbursement of court fees (R. 370.9 RoP)

IPPT20250321, UPC CFI, LD Brussels, Barco v Yealink
Provisional measures dismissed based on lack of urgency (R. 209(2)(b) RoP). If an infringement action was lodged immediately this would have led – in view of the one-year proceedings before the UPC – to a decision before the summer 2025. 2 ½ months delay in the filing of the request for provisional measures after reasonable subjective earliest date for the initiation of proceedings – 12 June 2024 – based on factual circumstances in the US proceedings). The Court also takes into consideration that (i) BARCO's earlier knowledge than 12 June 2024 (taking into account the dates of 17 May 2023 and 31 March 2024 (…) of the existence of the alleged infringing devices, (ii) the fact that BARCO itself states that the infringing devices have been on the market for a long time (…), and (iii) the letter from the EPO announcing the EPO's intention to grant on 6 May 2024 (§ 17). Date of the grant of the European patent should be considered as the objective earliest date to file an action with the UPC and not the date of registration of the unitary effect of this European patent (either an action for infringement (Art. 32(1)(a) UPCA) or an action for provisional measures (Art. 32(1)(c) UPCA). Conditions for provisional measures are of a cumulative nature in the sense that not meeting one of these conditions implies the claims for provisional measures to be held unfounded without the necessity or obligation for the Court to further assess any other requirement. (R. 209 RoP) . Such limited assessment is in line with the purpose of an application for provisional measures and the procedural-economy of such proceedings which should not lead to a mini-trial on the merits. Preliminary objections regime of  R. 19(1) RoP, and its mentioned time-limit, is not applicable to objections to applications for provisional measures, but relates to proceedings on the merits (R. 209 RoP). Art. 33(1) UPCA establishes the possibility of parallel competence of LDs. Territorial competence of a division of the UPC is a matter of the internal organization of the UPC (Article 33 UPCA) 

IPPT20250319, UPC CFI, LD Munich, MSG v EJP
€ 33.224,50 compensation for representation costs (Article 69 UPCA), R. 151 RoP, R. 152 RoP). Costs of legal proceedings are those costs that have been (actually) incurred in the specific pending or relevant proceedings. These include, in particular, the costs listed in Rule 151(d) of the Rules of Procedure. Other costs are those that have not been incurred in the pending proceedings but are directly and closely related to the proceedings in question. The costs in question must be cumulatively reasonable and appropriate, which is always a matter for the individual case. The criteria mentioned [...] ensure a high level of protection for European patents by preventing an injured party from being deterred from bringing legal proceedings to protect their rights and by ensuring that the measures, procedures and remedies necessary to enforce intellectual property rights are not unnecessarily costly. Reasonable means necessary. Based fundamentally on the ex ante position of a reasonable and economically rational party, the decisive factor is whether the measure incurring the costs appeared objectively necessary and suitable for achieving the legitimate objective of the proceedings. The measure must therefore have appeared relevant for the pursuit or defence of legal rights. The costs for preparing the application for a determination of costs in the amount of € 285.00 are to be reimbursed. These are also reasonable and appropriate costs for the appropriate legal defence.
 

IPPT20250319, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Jingao v Chint
Claimant must provide security for costs to Defendants in an amount of € 200.000 (Article 69(4) UPCA). With regard to a country that fails to fulfil its obligations under the Hague Service Convention, it has to be assumed that an order for reimbursement of costs by the UPC may not be enforceable in this country or just in an unduly burdensome way. Although the People's Republic of China has ratified the Hague Service Convention, European courts are facing significant difficulties in serving statements of claim and other documents in China. 

IPPT20250319, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Adeia v Disney
Rectification of scheduling order (R. 353 RoP). The scheduling order dated 18 March 2025 is rectified. Item 4 now reads: “The oral hearing is scheduled for 15 January 2026, 9.00 a.m., in person in Denisstr. 3 in Munich, room 212 and overflow room 220b.” 

IPPT20250318, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Adeia v Disney
No bifurcation – party consent (R. 37 RoP), scheduling interim conference and oral hearing 

IPPT20250318, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Hand Held Products v Scandit
Withdrawal of action by party consent (R. 265 RoP). Reimbursement of 40% of court fees (R. 370 RoP)

IPPT20250318, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Dolby v Roku
Alleged incompatibility of UPCA with EU law is no ground for objection under R. 19(1) RoP. An objection under Rule 19(1) of the Rules of Procedure cannot be successfully based on a possible violation of Article 47(2) of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights or Article 6(1) of the ECHR. For jurisdiction to be assumed it is sufficient that the plaintiff conclusively asserts that an act of infringement establishing jurisdiction has taken place and that this cannot be ruled out from the outset. It is it is not necessary that a violation has actually occurred or is likely to occur.

IPPT20250318, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Sun Patent v Roku

Alleged incompatibility of UPCA with EU law is no ground for objection under R. 19(1) RoP. An objection under Rule 19(1) of the Rules of Procedure cannot be successfully based on a possible violation of Article 47(2) of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights or Article 6(1) of the ECHR. For jurisdiction to be assumed it is sufficient that the plaintiff conclusively asserts that an act of infringement establishing jurisdiction has taken place and that this cannot be ruled out from the outset. It is it is not necessary that a violation has actually occurred or is likely to occur. If a representative of the plaintiff (Article 48 UPCA) has declared withdrawal from the ‘opt-out’ (Article 83 UPCA) with regard to the patent in dispute, it is not necessary for the plaintiff to prove, on its own initiative, in or with the statement of claim, that the representative has power of attorney with regard to the declared withdrawal. Proof must only be provided if the power of attorney is disputed..

IPPT20250317, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Edwards v Meril
Edwards' request for protection of confidential information in application for a cost decision granted (R. 262.2 RoP). Leave to amend the request for protection of confidential information pursuant to R. 262A RoP is granted (Rule 263.3 RoP)
 

IPPT20250317, UPC CFI, LD Hamburg, Daedalus v Xiaomi
Preliminary objection rejected (R. 19 RoP, Article 7(3) Brussels Regulation). Sufficient for establishing international jurisdiction of the UPC that the Claimant claims that Defendant 5) would be a joint perpetrator as it was aware of the fact and deliberately intended that its processors were making their way into the German market as components of certain Xiaomi smartphones, regardless whether or not these assertions are disputed by Defendant 5) or not.

IPPT20250314, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Roche v Tandem
Defendants are permitted to engage an interpreter at their own expense who may use the simultaneous interpretation equipment available in the courtroom if necessary (Article 51(2) UPCA, R. 109 RoP)

IPPT20250313, UPC CFI, CD Paris, Suinno v Microsoft
Action not manifestly bound to fail (R.361 RoP). Lack of a valid representation of a party requires the Court to grant that party an opportunity to remedy the deficit and, therefore, does not lead to the declaration of the inadmissibility of the action or the application filed by this party (R. 291 RoP)

IPPT20250311, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Syngenta v Sumi Agro
Panel review: order of judge-rapporteur to dismiss application to revoke provisional measures upheld (R. 333 RoP. R. 15 RoP, R. 213(1) RoP). Nothing in R. 213 (1) RoP states or implies that the court fees have to be received by the court in order to start the proceedings. As Syngenta has started the main proceedings and has paid the court fee in due time, the application must be dismissed.

IPPT20250311, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Hurom v NUC - II
Separation of proceedings ordered (R. 302 RoP) between national parts of European bundle patent ready for decision and the national parts of the patent-in-suit concerning Poland, Spain and the United Kingdom, which are not ready for decision yet: a fundamental question of European Law concerning the international jurisdiction towards a defendant domiciled outside the EU following the decision of the European Court of Justice in re C-339/22 (BSH Hausgeräte)

IPPT20250311, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Hurom v NUC - I
Direct patent infringement within the territory of the UPCA member states by acts outside that territory (Article 25 UPCA): acts in the meaning of Art. 25 UPCA also encompass acts which make the infringement possible and support it, at least when such acts give the potential perpetrator control over the infringement. Infringing acts with regard to France and Germany respectively do not suffice to extend the remedies sought to other UPCA member state (Art. 34 UPCA) No UPC jurisdiction regarding Turkey: no single fact brought forward or apparent that may constitute an act committed within the territory of the UPCA member states and relating to a possible infringement in Turkey (Article 7(3) Brussels Regulation). No preliminary objection required to challenge jurisdiction: suffices that the defendant raises the objection against the international jurisprudence in its first defence. Art. 26 Brussels Ia Reg. prevails over R. 19.7 RoP due to the primacy of Union Law. UPC has jurisdiction for acts committed before the UPCA’s entry into force on 1 June 2023. Applicable law. The determination of the substantive law applicable to an alleged infringement is to be strictly distinguished from the jurisdiction to hear the case. With regard to traditional European bundle patents (a) the substantive national laws of the UPCA member states applies to acts committed before the entry into force of the UPCA on 1 June 2023, (b) the substantive law as laid down in the UPCA applies (i) to acts committed after the entry into force of the UPCA and (ii) to ongoing acts started before the entry into force of the UPCA and continued after the entry into force on 1 June 2023. An infringing act is ongoing if the infringer continues its infringing behaviour although he could have stopped the infringement in the light of the entry into force of the new regime on 1 June 2023. However, in order to avoid potential hardship, the party concerned may rely on the provisions of the respective national law in force prior to the entry into force of the UPCA with regard to acts of past use which lie before 1 June 2023. Unsuccessful rebuttal of presumption of ownership of the registered proprietor (R. 8.5 RoP). No doubt that the Transfer Agreement 2018 was validly concluded. Right to information of Article 67 UPCA and Article 68 UPCA may encompass time periods which resided before the entry into force of the UPCA. The question of intertemporal applicability of a right to information and the question of the scope of the period, for which information has to be provided, have to be distinguished. 

IPPT20250310, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Promosome v BioNTech
Confidentiality club established and rules set (R. 262A RoP). In the event of a culpable breach of this Order, the Court may impose a recurring penalty payment for each violation which will be determined having regard to the circumstances of the individual breach

IPPT20250307, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Tridonic v Cupower
Patent valid but not infringed. New validity attacks raised during the oral proceedings not taken into consideration. If considered as an amendment of claim, the attacks should have been raised at the latest in the reply to the counterclaim ((R. 263 RoP). If considered as additional argumentation for the annulment of the contested patent, it must be rejected pursuant to R. 9.2 VerfO. Strategic manoeuvring aimed at achieving a surprise effect is as foreign to the rules of procedure as is the introduction of completely new means of attack on the basis of a merely preliminary assessment by the court at the beginning of the oral hearing, especially since this is not uniform in the UPC. Novelty: direct and unambiguous disclosure (article 54 EPC): Findings which a person skilled in the art only gains through further consideration or by consulting other documents or prior use are not part of the prior art. Inventive step (Article 56 UPCA). Case by case basis. An objective approach must be taken. The subjective ideas of the applicant or inventor are irrelevant. Only what the claimed invention actually contributes to the state of the art is relevant. No infringement because of a lacking claim feature (article 69 EPC)
 

IPPT20250304, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Hartmann Packaging v Omni-Pac
No further exchange of written pleadings allowed (R. 36 RoP). Request must be made promptly after receipt of rejoinder. No sound justification as to why, based on the defendant's submissions in the rejoinder, it was necessary for the first time to submit written statements on a possible equivalent infringement.

IPPT20250304, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals v Pfizer
Bifurcation ordered: revocation action at CD Milan filed at same date as infringement action (Article 33.(3) UPCA, R. 37 RoP). Unanimous request by the parties and a referral of the Counterclaim for revocation seems to be appropriate, particularly for reasons of efficiency. No stay of infringement action at this stage: question of high likelihood of invalidity requires adetailed examination, taking into account the entire content of the file. Time period for the Defendants’ Rejoinder to the reply to the statement of defence extended with one month (R. 9.3 RoP): exceptional case. Given that the bifurcation decision was taken only relatively shortly before the expiry of the time period for lodging the Rejoinder, it appears appropriate to grant the Defendants an extension by one month. 

IPPT20250303, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Headwater v Samsung
Rule 105.5 Order following interim conference: Value of claims, parallel proceedings, deficiencies in formal pleadings, inadmissibility of invalidity attack based on article 138(1)(e) EPC under applicable German and French law, no need to hear witnesses at this time, late filed documents, PowerPoint slides at oral hearing, hybrid hearing

IPPT20250303, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Order to preserve evidence rejected
Order to preserve evidence rejected. No sufficient degree of substantiation that that there is a sufficient degree of probability that infringement of the asserted claim combination can be found (Article 60 UPCA, R. 192.2 RoP). Required, if multiple ways are equally open to achieve the technical result, that facts are submitted which suggest that the result is being achieved by using the solution as patented and/or elaborating on alternative solutions and explain why it is rather to be excluded that these solutions are being implemented. These standards are of tantamount relevance in cases like the present one, where the application had been lodged before bringing an action on the merits of the case so that the court cannot refer to the main briefs to inform itself upon the arguments exchanged on infringement (cf. R. 192.2 RoP).

IPPT20250303, UPC CFI, LD Copenhagen, Hybridgenerator v HGSystem
The rules on the preservation of evidence do not prevent a subsequent further examination of the relevant material that has been secured during the preservation of evidence. (Article 62 UPCA,  R. 211 RoP). No order to pay recurring penalty: at this point in time, it appears that all the required codes have been provided in order for the evidence to be secured.

IPPT20250303, UPC CFI, CD Paris, Suinno v Microsoft
Exclusion of […] as representative of Suinno and granting a period of 30 days to appoint and instruct a new representative, who shall be required to ratify the written pleadings submitted by […] (R. 291 RoP, R. 9 RoP)

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 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, 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 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. 

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).

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

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). 

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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 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 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)

IPPT20250131, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Rematec v Europe Forestry
Patent in suit declared null and void (Article 65 UPCA). Person skilled in the art (Article 56 EPC) is a mechanical engineer (Dipl.-Ing. (FH) or B. of Eng.) who has several years of professional experience in the development and construction of mills for grinding material. Product claim 1 lacks novelty (Article 54 EPC). All the features of device claim 1 are directly and unambiguously known from document D3. Product claim 1 lacks an inventive step (Article 56 EPC). If the panel's interpretation of feature 1d) is not followed, but instead a more extensive radial supply and removal of all the ground material through the corresponding openings is required, then D3 would not be novelty-destroying. However, in this case there would be no inventive step, since feature 1d) then results in an obvious way for the person skilled in the art from D3. The skilled person is first taught by the D3 that ‘the inlet and outlet openings can be provided practically anywhere in the direction of rotation of the rotor, one after the other, around the circumference of the rotor in the housing’ (page 11, 3rd paragraph, lines 19 to 21). For the person skilled in the art, the question as to how the inlet and outlet ports connected to the openings should be aligned in a meaningful way thus arises at the next stage, so to speak, when putting it into practice. In this respect, however, D3 opens up several options for the person skilled in the art that are in any case within his or her general technical grasp. Process claim 15 lacks an inventive step. The alignment of the discharge opening in the sense addressed by feature 15f and explained above lies here to the same extent in his general technical knowledge and, in addition, the ground material is discharged in one direction due to gravity, which can be addressed as being essentially radially oriented.

IPPT20250130, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Adeia v Disney
Extension and shortening of deadlines with one week following party agreement (R. 9 RoP)

IPPT20250130, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Fujifilm v Kodak - II
Order setting out decisions taken at interim conference (R. 105.5 RoP). Panel inclined to deal with cross border injunction questions for the UK separately in case no final decision has been delivered by the ECJ in case 339/22 (BSH Hausgerate). The question of a possible retroactive effect of the UPCA in the light of Art 28 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) will have to be discussed, in particular if the UPCA’s substantive provisions are also applicable to acts where commitment has begun before the entry into force of the UPCA but are ongoing

IPPT20250130, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Fujifilm v Kodak - I
Claimant is free to use an interpreter (Japanese) at his own expense (see R. 109.4 RoP), who may, if necessary, use the simultaneous interpretation equipment available in the court room. Does not seem appropriate that the cost of the simultaneous interpretation should become a part of the cost of the proceedings. Japanese is neither an official language of the Contracting Member States nor an official or designated language of the Local Division Mannheim, where the infringement action was filed in English.

IPPT20250129, UPC CFI, LD Paris, C-Kore Systems v Novawell
Action concluded by way of settlement and confirmation of settlement agreement by decision of the court (R. 365 RoP, R. 11.2 RoP). Declares that the unredacted version will remain confidential (R. 262 RoP)

IPPT20250129, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, Abbott v Dexcom
Withdrawal of the action by agreement; no need for a cost decision, 20% of court fees reimbursed (R. 265 RoP, R. 370 RoP)

IPPT20250128, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Fujifilm v Kodak
Patent revoked in the territory of all Contracting Member States in which the patent has effect (Article 65 UPCA). Insufficient disclosure of the claimed invention over the complete scope of the granted claims. (Article 83 EPC, Article 138(2) EPC). As the features of the claims define the “invention” considered under Art. 138(1)b) EPC, a technical effect is to be taken into account in assessing sufficiency only if it is explicitly claimed. Cross border jurisdiction UPC over defendant domiciled in UPC Contracting Member State regarding infringement of UK part of a European patent (R. 20 RoP, Article 4 Brussels Regulation, Article 24 Brussels Regulation). This also applies if the defendant has filed a counterclaim for revocation in respect of the German part of the patent in suit. Even then, as regards the infringement action concerning the United Kingdom, the Unified Patent Court has jurisdiction to hear the case. Claim interpretation (Article 69 EPC, Protocol). The terms used in a claim should be given their broadest technically sensible meaning in the context of the claim in which they appear. A narrowing interpretation of the claims (“Auslegung unterhalb des Wortlauts”) based on the description or drawings should generally not be permitted. convincing reasons based on the circumstances of the individual case in question required. Novelty-destroying Implicit disclosure (Article 54(1) EPC). Implicit disclosure means no more than the clear, immediate and unambiguous consequence of what is explicitly mentioned. An alleged prior art disclosure of a feature can be considered "implicit" if it is immediately apparent to the skilled person that nothing other than the alleged implicit feature forms part of the subject-matter disclosed. "Implicit disclosure", however, does not only mean information that the skilled person can unequivocally derive from a cited document in addition to what is explicitly described therein. [...] , “implicit disclosure” means any feature which a person skilled in the art would objectively consider as necessarily implied in the explicit content, e.g. in view of general scientific laws. A feature is also implicitly disclosed if, in carrying out the teaching of a prior-art document, the skilled person would inevitably arrive at a result falling within the terms of a claim. Added matter (Art. 123(2) EPC). The correct question to be asked when evaluating compliance with Art. 123(2) EPC is whether the subject-matter of an amended claim is directly and unambiguously taught to the skilled person by the original application. A direct teaching requires that the subject-matter is originally taught as specific, clearly defined and recognizable individual embodiment, either explicitly or implicitly, without the necessity of applying any deductive skills. The correct question to be asked is therefore not whether a skilled person would merely consider the subject-matter of an amended claim as falling within the scope of an originally disclosed broader teaching, but whether the skilled person would immediately and without any doubt understand that said subject-matter of an amended claim is a specific, individualized embodiment which is also originally disclosed as such.

IPPT20250128, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Qualcomm v Shenzen
Withdrawal of the action by agreement; parties bearing their own costs, 60% of court fees reimbursed (R. 265 RoP, R. 370 RoP)

IPPT20250127, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Avago v Realtek
Withdrawal of request for provisional measures (R. 205 RoP, R. 265 RoP). By analogy reimbursement of 20% of court fees (R. 370.9 RoP)

IPPT20250127, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Avago v Tesla
No party objections. Access granted (R. 262 RoP) to the pleadings and annexes filed in the workflow of the invalidity counterclaim CC_581177/2023 UPC_CFI_52/2023. This does not concern access to the file of the infringement proceedings or other workflows.

IPPT20250127, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Lenovo v ASUSTek - II
Scheduling and preparing interim conference of 25 September 2025 (R. 103 RoP) and scheduling oral hearing at 19 November 2025 (R. 108 RoP)

IPPT20250127, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Lenovo v ASUSTek - I
No bifurcation, request to assign technically qualified judge (Article 33(3)(a) UPCA). 
 

IPPT20250127, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Snowpixie v Golf Tech
Order to provide security for costs  of € 62.600 by a small enterprise (R. 158.5 RoP). Based on Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC of May 6, 2003, concerning the definition of micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises (OJ L 124, May 20, 2003, p. 36; for the application of this Recommendation, see ECJ, Judgment of March 10, 2021 – C-572/19 P), is at least a small enterprise in view of its turnover and number of employees. Particularly in the case of small enterprises, care must be taken to ensure effective access to justice. Any required security deposit must therefore be set at a level that allows for effective access to justice and prevents the enterprise’s action from being dismissed by default judgment due to a security deposit it cannot afford (Rule 158.5 RoP). If a small business reports an operating loss in its most recent annual accounts and there are insufficient assets available as security, a security deposit must be ordered in accordance with Rule 158 of the RoP at the request of the opposing party. When determining the amount of the security deposit, considerations of equity that will be relevant to the subsequent assessment of costs must be taken into account. This is because the assessment of the security must be based on the costs to be fixed in accordance with Article 69 of the UPCA; under Article 69 of the UPCA, considerations of equity may preclude the bearing of costs in whole or in part. A party who is able to pay both their own costs (court fees and legal representation costs) and a security set by the court is capable of bearing the costs. Legal aid cannot be granted in this case

IPPT20250124, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Headwater v Samsung
Superfluous request for confidentiality order as a confidentiality order is already in place (R. 262A RoP). All subsequent pleadings require only that the confidential information subject to a 262A order be greyed out in the unredacted version of the pleading, that a redacted version be uploaded, and that the pleading be accompanied by a Rule 262.2 application. The latter ensures that the CMS alerts CMS users to the confidential nature of the information. Leave to change claim of amend case granted (R. 263 RoP) pending a further review of the reasons for Samsung to late file some invalidity arguments. If the late filed arguments are accepted Headwater has already been given a chance to comment and to amend pleadings. If the late filed arguments are rejected no harm has been caused by allowing the amendments. This issue will be further discussed in the Interim Conference scheduled for 28 February 2025.

IPPT20250124, UPC CFI, LD Paris, Photon Wave v Seoul Viosys
Standalone action for revocation by intervener is inadmissible before the present Division in the case at hand (Article 33(3) and (4) UPCA, R. 316A RoP). The Court notes that the intervener will still have the possibility of acting independently before the UPC to challenge a patent that is, in his view, invalid, but outside the context of an infringement action pending before the local division seized of an action that is currently at the interim conference stage. 

IPPT20250124, UPC CFI, LD Milan, Dainese v Alpinestars
Confidentiality club regime (R. 262A RoP): (a) the number of persons included in the confidential club must not exceed the number necessary to ensure that the rights of the parties to the proceedings to an effective remedy and to a fair trial are respected, and must include at least one natural person from each party and their respective lawyers or other representatives; (b) the minimum content of the information contained in the exhibit No. 70 is non-technical and does not require special expertise to understand. Those considerations suggest that the number of subjects admitted to the Club should be kept to a minimum. The Court therefore considers that the confidential club should include the following: As lawyers or other representatives from the defendant n. 1 and 6; […] as natural person: […]

IPPT20250124, UPC CFI, CD Paris, Microsoft v Suinno – IPR-EPO
Access to register of pending proceedings denied (Article 45 UPCA, R. 262 RoP). The interest in protecting of the integrity of the ongoing proceedings outweighs the interest in accessing information asserted by the applicant, prevails. The mere fact of being interested in the outcome of a specific legal issue, concerning the interpretation of statutory provision of the ‘UPCA’, which is debated before the Court may not be sufficient to grant access to the case file where the interests mentioned in Article 45 ‘UPCA’ were deemed to be more relevant.

IPPT20250124, UPC CFI, LD Munich, NEC V TCL
Withdrawal of counterclaim for revocation and counterclaim for a FRAND-license offer; parties bearing their own costs, 60% of court fees reimbursed (R. 265 RoP, R. 370 RoP). Analogous application of Rule 370 RoP to a counterclaim for a FRAND-license offer. The UPC is not based on the principle of free proceedings, but the parties contribute for the costs incurred by the Court (Article 36(3) and 70 UPCA) 

IPPT20250122, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Sanofi v Accord

Order setting out decisions taken at interim conference (R. 105.5 RoP). Sanofi is invited to remedy the deficiencies in the formal submissions and to explain within 7 days exactly who is asking what of whom in what territory and why

IPPT20250122, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, Mammoet v P.T.S.
Ex parte order for preserving evidence at former supplier, non-cooperating after cease-and-desist letter: detailed description, physical seizure, preservation in print or copy of digital media; written report within ten business days from the date of execution of the order (Article 60.5 UPCA, R. 196 RoP, R. 197 RoP). Representatives only confidentiality club as requested: access to the Written Report is initially limited to the representatives of the Defendant only (R. 262A RoP). Lower threshold for preservation of evidence than for provisional injunction (R. 196 RoP, R. 211 RoP).Degree of certainty required for the granting of an application for the preservation of evidence and description (R.190, 196 RoP) is lower than the threshold for the granting of an injunction as a provisional measure (R.211 RoP) as the former is also meant to collect evidence for further actions. Demonstrable risk of evidence being destroyed as the capture of data is one of the Applicant’s targets and it is generally accepted that digital data can be easily hidden or erased if previous notice is given of this kind of application, as is also mentioned above. Mammoet’s fear that evidence can easily be removed if the Defendant is informed or heard before the measure, is thus considered justified.

IPPT20250122, UPC CFI, CD Paris, NJOY v VMR

EP 453 maintained in part based on claims 6, 7 and 8 in combination with claim 1 as granted (Article 65 UPCA). Admissible new documents Claimant (R. 44 RoP, R. 263 RoP). The claimant cannot introduce new grounds of invalidity of the attacked patent or introduce new documents considered novelty destroying or affecting inventive step in subsequent written acts. The claimant must specify in the statement of claim the facts that it considers necessary to prove in order to succeed in its claim, together with the relevant evidence. In certain situations, following the defence raised by the defendant, the claimant may need to allege new facts, insofar as they are considered capable of supporting the main facts already timely alleged and disputed by the defendant. In this case, the need to respond to the defendant's defence, the terms of which cannot be foreseen ex ante by the claimant, justifies the introduction of such new facts in the reply to defence to revocation. Likewise, the need to produce new evidence may arise from the defendant's defence which disputes the facts alleged by the claimant or the probative value of the evidence already filed in Court. The documents introduced by the Claimant in the Reply to defence to revocation – consisting of the declaration released by […] and of the documents referred to in that statement are admissible, given that it contains arguments regarding the common general knowledge and the claim construction which are intended to contrast and react to the arguments raised by the Defendant in its Defence to revocation and [….] opinion, filed in support of these latter arguments. The admissibility of these late filed documents shall also extend to arguments that, while not constituting a direct response to the Defendant’s arguments, are closely related to them. Late filed auxiliary requests (R. 44 RoP. R. 263 RoP) Insufficient justification by change in strategy regarding coordination with EPO proceedings. The Defendant for the first time in the submission of 30. July 2024 indicated that it (now) wishes to coordinate its defence in both parallel proceedings. The Defendant had not indicated in the Defence to Revocation that the auxiliary requests filed at the time were filed with the aim to coordinate its defence in both parallel proceedings. The Court considers the reason provided with the submission of 30. July 2024 as a change of the strategy of the Defendant. For these reasons, the subsequent requests are inadmissible. Alternative request to maintain the patent at suit with respect to one or more of its dependent claims is a sufficiently clear request (Article 65 UPCA), even if it does not specify a particular claim, and, as such, imposes on the Court the obligation to rule on the matter and decide which claims, if any, remain valid. Common general knowledge (Article 56 EPC). The ‘CGK’, in general, is information which has been commonly known to the skilled person from written sources or from practical experience in the relevant technical field. The ‘CGK’ includes knowledge which is directly available from familiar sources of information relating to the specific technical field at the prior date but is not to be confused with publicly available knowledge, which may not be general and common. A familiar source of information typically is a source to which a skilled person regularly turns for guidance on standard design solutions that are generally applicable, such as standard textbooks, encyclopaedias, manuals, handbooks, dictionaries and databases which the skilled person knows and can use as a suitable and reliable source for the respective information in the respective technical field. A familiar source of information should not be confused however with all publicly available prior art documents. In any case, the ‘CGK’ is subject of evidence (Article 54 UPCA)

IPPT20250122, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Fujifilm v Kodak
Preliminary views and questions for oral hearing (R. 105.5 RoP). Cross border injunction for UK? Panel is inclined to deal with the questions concerned in a separate proceeding after the separation of cases and stay such separate proceeding until a decision has been delivered by the ECJ (Case C-339/22, BSH Hausgeräte v Electrolux). Possible retroactive effect of the UPCA in the light of Art 28 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) will have to be discussed, in particular if the UPCA’s substantive provisions are also applicable to acts where commitment has begun before the entry into force of the UPCA but are ongoing.

IPPT20250121, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Maxeon Solar v Aiko Energy
No rectification unredacted version confidentiality club order (R. 353 RoP, R. 262A RoP). No “obvious slip” nor any other clerical mistake. In the “unredacted version” it contains the name of the natural person of Defendant 7. to whom access was granted. It is only in the “redacted version” that this name is deleted and replaced by “[…]”

IPPT20250121, UPC CFI, LD Munich, air up v Guangzhou Aiyun
Not necessary to attempt to serve decision by default in accordance with R. 274 RoP before an order that steps  taken is good service (R. 275.2 RoP) where the application for a provisional measure could not be served in accordance with R. 274 RoP and there is no indication that the decision by default can be served in accordance with R. 274 RoP. Pursuant to the principle of effective legal protection it must always be possible to establish good service, at least in accordance with R. 275.2 RoP . Consequently, neither the ordering nor the enforcement of provisional measures under Article 62 UPCA can be frustrated by the fact that an application for a preliminary injunction or a court order issued in accordance with such an application cannot be served.

IPPT20250121, UPC CFI, RD Nordic-Baltic, Edwards v Meril
Withdrawal of application for access to pleadings and evidence. No reimbursement of legal costs (R. 265 RoP). There is no legal basis for ordering a member of the public, who has made a request for access to written pleadings and evidence, to reimburse legal costs incurred by the parties to the relevant proceedings when they are consulted by the judge-rapporteur in accordance with Rule 262.1(b) RoP. 
 

IPPT20250121, UPC CFI, CD Paris, NJOY Netherlands v VMR Products
Revocation action dismissed (Article 65 UPCA).  Court not convinced that it would have been obvious to suggest the claimed vaporizer, regardless of ‘Cross’ being combined with an alleged common general knowledge or with ‘Lee’. To asses inventive step (Article 56 EPC) it is first necessary to determine one or more realistic starting points in the state of the art which would be of interest to a person skilled in the art who, at the priority date of the patent in suit, was seeking to develop a product or process similar to that disclosed in the prior art. In particular, realistic starting points are the documents which disclose the main relevant features as those disclosed in the challenged patent or which address the same or a similar underlying problem. Against this background, ‘Cross’ is not a suitable starting point for the evaluation of inventive step. Admissibility of late filed assertions and late filed evidentiary documents (R. 263 RoP, R. 32 RoP).. The documents introduced by the claimant in the reply to defence to revocation – including the declaration released by […] and the documents referred to in that statement – are admissible, given that they contain arguments regarding the common general knowledge and the claim construction which are intended to contrast and react to the arguments raised by defendant in its defence to revocation and the evidence […] filed in support of these latter arguments. The admissibility of these late filed documents shall also extend to arguments that, while not constituting a direct response to the defendant’s arguments, are closely related to them. Individual line of arguments to use the combination of ‘Pan’ with either ‘Duke’, ‘Tucker’ or ‘CAS’ considered late filed as it was not raised in the statement for revocation, but only in the reply to the defence and hence must be disregarded.

IPPT20250120, UPC CFI, LD Paris, NJ Diffusion v Gisela Mayer
Evidence is not set exhaustively in R. 170 RoP. The measure requested by NJ consists of simple findings and not experiments within the meaning of Rule 201 RoP. The Court considers that the requested probatory measure is unnecessary in that it aims to show the said wigs in detail, whereas enlarged photographs of these wigs appear in NJ's reply brief, as indicated by the defendant. 

IPPT20250120, UPC CFI, RD Nordic-Baltic, Abbott v Dexcom
Withdrawal of action by party consent (R. 265 RoP) 

IPPT20250117, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Sanofi v Accord
Sanofi Mature IP replaced by Sanofi SA in the present and all related proceedings (without objection) (R. 305 RoP). On 29 September 2024, the Sanofi group reorganized its group of companies, and Sanofi Mature IP has been dissolved without liquidation as all the shares of Sanofi Mature IP came to be held by its single shareholder, Sanofi SA. This resulted in the universal transfer of assets of Sanofi Mature IP to Sanofi SA, including the ownership of EP 466. 
 

IPPT20250117, UPC CFI, LD Brussels, OrthoApnea
No patent infringement: neither literal nor by equivalence (Article 25 UPCA). The assessment of the scope of protection of a patent is in two stages (Article 69 EPC, Interpretation Protocol). In the first stage, the literal infringement must be assessed on the basis of the characteristics of the patent in the light of the interpretation of the claims. In a second stage, if it is judged that no literal infringement can be assumed and provided that this is invoked, the infringement will be assessed by equivalence. No literal infringement (Article 69 EPC). In the NOA the closing of the mouth is not further prevented (or limited) by a ‘stop’ and ‘contact surface’ in the sense of claim 1. No infringement by equivalence (Article 2, Interpretation Protocol). In the absence of technically functional equivalence, irrespective of the test used (the ‘function-way-result’ test or the ‘insubstantial differences’ test), there can be no infringement because of equivalence. In NOA, the connecting elements (and the corresponding parts of the elements) do not have this function, which is to prevent the mouth from closing any further. In NOA, the complete closure of the mouth is prevented by the upper and lower parts of the device coming together. In this case, it is not the coupling elements that have the function of preventing further closing of the mouth, but the upper and lower parts in the occlusal plane. Start of proceedings on the merits is the date of uploading the (Dutch-language) Statement of Claim in the CMS (R. 198.1 RoP) 

IPPT20250116, UPC CFI, LD Hamburg, Daedalus v Xiaomi
Bifurcation: parties agree and most practical solution (Article 33(3) UPCA). As the oral hearing is already scheduled by the Central Division – and its date is approaching within the next two to three months – a referral of the counterclaim to the Central Division appears to be the most practical solution to avoid inconsistent decisions and duplication of work on validity (comp. LD Munich, 02.02.2024). No stay of infringement action (R. 296.3 RoP). A stay of proceedings would lead to the consequence that all time-limits are automatically suspended and shall begin to run afresh from the date the stay comes to an end, R. 296.3 RoP. As a Statement of defence is still due for Defendant 1) and Defendant 5), it is for the time being favourable to proceed with the infringement action as a whole. Furthermore, a decision on the Defendant 5)’s preliminary objection dated 16 December 2024 under R. 19.1(a) is still pending. For the sake of efficiency of the proceedings the panel takes, as indicated by the judge-rapporteur in his preliminary order 10 December 2024, the expected time line for the issuing of a final decision of the Central Division into consideration.

IPPT20250116, UPC CFI President, BF exaQC v NVIDIA
Application to change the language of the proceedings from German to English dismissed (Article 49 (5) UPCA, R. 323 RoP). Given its financial resources and logistical support, NVIDIA has the capacity and means to conduct proceedings in a foreign language – especially since this applies to only one of the Defendant – without significant inconvenience. 
 

IPPT20250116, UPC CFI, LD Hamburg, Avago v Tesla
Withdrawal of action, pending appeal (R. 265 RoP). If a case is pending before the court of appeal, the court of appeal has jurisdiction to decide on the admissibility of the applications for withdrawal. However, the situation is different for the request for the determination of the costs to be refunded under Rules 150 RoP. This is currently still pending at first instance, with the result that the court of first instance still has jurisdiction to allow its withdrawal, in accordance with the rules on the procedure for the determination of costs before the Judge-Rapporteur. In any case, Rule 265 RoP applies mutatis mutandis to the proceedings for the determination of costs, even if there is no explicit reference to that rule. Since this is not a measure of the direction of proceedings under Rules 331 et seq. RoP, but a substantive decision within the original jurisdiction of the Judge-Rapporteur under Rule 156.2 RoP, the Judge-Rapporteur also has original and sole jurisdiction to allow the withdrawal. 

IPPT20250115, UPC CFI, LD Vienna, Swarco v Strabag
Patent infringement (Article 25 UPCA). All features of claim 1 are used in the optical unit. Invalidity objection (subject-matter extends beyond the application as filed, Article 123(2) EPC)) not addressed in terms of content since no counterclaim for revocation was filed (R. 25 RoP, R. 42 RoP). No (definitional) limitation of the skilled person’s understanding of the term ‘converging lens’ (Article 69 EPC). Neither the description nor the US patent support a limitation of feature M4 or the understanding of the skilled person that only spherical collecting lenses are to be covered by the patent in suit. […] the skilled person understands the term ‘converging lens’ to mean not only (restrictively) a spherical lens, but also an aspherical lens. A converging lens must be able to focus light at a focus point of the lens. For this technical function, it is not absolutely necessary for the lens to be perfectly spherical (see the remarks in 2.3.2 on the characteristic M10). According to the description of the patent in suit, a diffusing structure or surface is to be understood – contrary to the defendant's view – not as part of the light-conducting rod, but as an optically effective structure in the area of the converging lens (5) (see [0054] and also [0053] and Figure 4 / feature M13). According to the wording of the UPCA, the definitive removal from the channels of commerce is an independent measure, separate from the recall (Article 64(2)(d) and 4 UPCA). It accompanies the recall, whereby removal is only considered if the infringer has the factual and legal possibilities to do so. The wording of specific and sufficiently particular measures must be based on this. No apparent reasons that would make publication of the decision necessary (Article 80 UPCA). When exercising discretion, the purposes of deterring future infringers and raising public awareness, as pursued by Art 80 UPCA, must be taken into account. The patent proprietor's (plaintiff's) interest in prevention, which goes beyond the specific infringement case, must be taken into account when weighing up the interests of the parties to the proceedings. Intervener also treated as a party with regard to the bearing of legal costs; in this case 20% indicative (Article 69(2) UPCA, R. 315.4 RoP). In the present case, the intervener's statement of 19 August 2024 caused the plaintiff relatively little expense because the written proceedings had already been completed for her at that time.
 

IPPT20250115, UPC CFI, LD Milan, Dainese v Alpinestars
Instead of staying the proceedings, the deadline for the statement of defence and any counterclaims is extended to 27.2.2025 (R. 9 RoP, R. 295 RoP) because of oral hearing in the EPO appeals proceedings scheduled for 13 February 2025: allows for a more overall procedural efficiency, on one hand not staying this proceedings – in the power of the Court - and on the other hand waiting for the upcoming EPO’s decision. Possibility of further exchange of written pleadings (R. 36 RoP) On a reasoned request by the other parties, both the plaintiff and the other defendants, they may be granted a period within which to submit their observations on the EPO's decision, in accordance with the procedural faculty provided for in Rule 36 of the Rules of Procedure. It follows that the solution adopted does not violate the adversarial principle and complies with the equality of the parties in the right of defence;
 

IPPT20250115, UPC CFI, LD Munich, NEC V TCL
Withdrawal of the action by agreement; parties bearing their own costs, 60% of court fees reimbursed (R. 265 RoP, R. 370 RoP)

IPPT20250114, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Ortovox v Mammut
Revocation action unfounded, patent infringed. Direct infringement of product claim (Article 25(a) UPCA) even though voice control feature requires activation. If a device in the offered or offered or sold is not yet suitable for making use of all the features of the patent claim because the customer must first activate certain functions, the alleged infringer must accept responsibility for the conduct of his customers if he instructs them to activate the device in such a way or if he deliberately exploits such activation by the customer in the knowledge that such activation will take place. even when voice control feature must be activated. Indirect infringement of process claim (Article 26(1) UPCA). The defendants advertise the suitability of the challenged embodiment for additional speech output in all search phases. It is therefore obvious not only from the circumstances that the defendants know that the challenged embodiment is objectively suitable for use in a manner infringing the patent, but also that customers of the challenged embodiment will use it to carry out the method according to the patent. The defendants should therefore have been aware in any case of the objective suitability for use in accordance with the patent and the intention of the users to use it. Destruction has to reliably prevent the entry or re-entry of the products into the market (Article 64(2)(e) and (4) UPCA). A software-based deactivation of the voice control could only speak against a destruction if it were ensured that the infringing devices could not be converted back into a patent-infringing state when such a solution was used and then placed on the market. No publication of the decision (Article 80 UPCA)  requires that the plaintiff's interest in the publication outweighs the necessary consequences of such publication for the defendant. As a rule, such publication is only considered if the plaintiff's protection is not already guaranteed by other measures.
 

IPPT20250114, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Sanofi v Accord
Confidentiality club regime (R. 262A RoP). Witness's personal details and copy of his passport do not qualify as confidential information under Rule 262A RoP. The witness's personal data are protected against disclosure to third parties by the mechanism provided for in Rule 262 RoP. Remaining information qualifies as confidential information. They relate to details of the remuneration and accounting between the various members of the Sanofi group in respect of the licence agreements relating to the patent in suit and to commercial figures relating to actual sales and profits generated by the licensed product; the tables in Appendix No. 1, the information corresponding to the “number of boxes sold to third parties” and the “net sales to third parties”, for each year and each country; : information in license agreement providing details of the accounting and handling within the sub-licensee framework and details of the accounting and handling within the sub-licensee framework. Limited club membership. At least one natural person must have access for each party to the proceedings. If there is more than one defendant and therefore more than one party, each of them is entitled to nominate a natural person ("one natural person from each party"). In addition, according to the wording of the law, access must be granted to all lawyers or other representatives of these parties to the proceedings. There is no numerical limit.

IPPT20250114, UPC CFI, CD Paris, Bentley v Network Systems
Withdrawal of an action (Rule 265 (1) RoP) does not require the express consent of the opposing party. It is sufficient that the party was given an opportunity to comment on the withdrawal and did not object within the time limit set by the Court. In the absence of an application for costs, the Court should not rule on costs and therefore no decision under Rule 265(2)(c) RoP has to be issued.

IPPT20250113, UPC CFI, LD Munich, 10x Genomics v Nanostring
Proceedings have been stayed as agreed by the parties until the date of the decision of the Opposition Division of the EPO (R. 295 RoP). Panel review of order of judge-rapporteur to limit the number of auxiliary requests to a one-digit number (R. 30 RoP, R. 333 RoP). If the outcome of the proceedings before the EPO is to be reflected and taken into account in the present proceedings and therefore the present proceedings were ordered to stay, it must be possible for Claimant 2) to adjust his auxiliary requests in the present proceedings according to the decision of the Opposition Division. It is not possible at this stage to assess what number of auxiliary requests will ultimately be considered reasonable. Claimant 2) is ordered to submit his auxiliary requests within 20 days after the decision of the Opposition Division of the EPO.

IPPT20250113, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Avago v Realtek
The withdrawal of the application for interim measures possible (R. 265 RoP, R. 212 RoP), since unserved ex parte order of 9 December 2024  prior to final decision upon review of granted ex parte order of 9 December 2024 is not a decision terminating the proceedings as the time limit for review has not yet begun to run. Applicant is to bear the costs of the proceedings for the grant of interim measures as a result of the withdrawal.
 

IPPT20250113, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Huawei v Netgear
Withdrawal of the provisional measures; each party shall bear its own costs,  Security released (R. 265 RoP,  R 158 RoP) 

IPPT20250110, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Huawei v Netgear II
IPPT20250110, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Netgear v Huawei
IPPT20250110, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Huawei v Netgear
Withdrawal of the infringement action and counterclaim for revocation; each party shall bear its own costs, 40% of court fees reimbursed (R. 265 RoP, R. 370 RoP)

IPPT20250110, UPC CFI, LD Paris, HP v Lama
Parties’ request for a 50% increase in the ceiling for representation cost denied (Article 69 UPCA, R. 152 RoP). No particularly complex case; pre-trial settlement costs not considered; each party owes € 7,500 euros in legal costs.

IPPT20250110, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Edwards Lifesciences v Meril
No legal basis for interest on reimbursable legal costs and other expenses (Article 69 UPCA, R. 156.2 RoP). A corresponding application of Rules 125 and 131 RoP, which govern the procedure for setting damages and compensation and expressly provide for interest, is ruled out. No provision for judge-rapporteur to grant leave to appeal from a cost decision. According to Rule 221 RoP, a party adversely affected by a decision referred to in Rule 157 RoP may, within 15 days of notification of the relevant decision of the Court of First Instance, file an application for leave to appeal with the Court of Appeal. 
 

IPPT20250110, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Valeo Electrification v Magna
Withdrawal parties bearing own costs (R. 265 RoP). No partial reimbursement of court fees applied for (R. 370.RoP). The decision follows the parties’ jointly expressed will. Insofar as R. 265.2 (c) RoP requires a decision on costs in accordance with Part 1, Chapter 5 RoP, the decision takes into account the agreement reached between the parties. At present, no party has filed an application for a partial reimbursement of court fees (R. 370.11 RoP in conjunction with R. 370.9 (b) (i) RoP), so that no such order could be made.

IPPT20250110, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Abbott v Dexcom
IPPT20250110, UPC CFI, LD Munich, DexCom v Abbott
Withdrawal and cost decision (R. 265.2(c) RoP). When admitting the withdrawal, the Court issues a decision on costs in accordance with Part 1, Chapter 5. A request by a party is not required in this respect. The parties' mutual consent may be taken into account in the cost decision.

IPPT20250109, UPC CFI, LD Munich, air up v Guangzhou Aiyun
Provisional measures ordered -  decision by default (R. 211 RoP, R. 355 RoP, Article 37 Statute). The application was served to the defendant in accordance with Rule 275.2 RoP (App_64018/2024). Within the letter of service, defendant was informed that a decision by default may be issued, if within the time limit foreseen by the Court defendant fails to take a step. Defendant did not respond. 

IPPT20250109, UPC CFI, CD Paris, ITCiCo Spain v BMW
Required explanation for setting aside a decision by default requires unforeseeable circumstances or force majeure (R. 356(2) RoP) means that the applicant must demonstrate that they were unable to comply with peremptory time limits or to appear at the oral hearing at which they were summoned (except as provided for in Rule 116 and 117 ‘RoP’) due to reasons beyond their control and therefore that the default is not attributable to their own fault but was caused by unforeseeable circumstances or force majeure. Non-availability of the defendant’s long-standing European Patent Attorney because of illness no excuse.

IPPT20250109, UPC CFI, President, ArcelorMittal v XPENG
Change of language of the proceedings from French to English (language of the patent) (R. 323 RoP). Preliminary objection concerning the language of the Statement of claim (R. 19.1(c) RoP) only possible based on Article 49(1) (2) UPCA. In contrast, R. 323 permits a change in the language of the proceedings as initially selected by the Claimant, as provided under Art. 49 (4) UPCA based “on grounds of convenience and fairness” which are invoked by the Applicants in the present case. As expressly agreed by ArcelorMittal in its written comments on the Application, the language of the proceedings will be changed to the language in which the patent at issue was granted – namely English. Statement of claim to be translated by claimant. Parties to agree on a list of the annexes that should be provided in English.

IPPT20250108, UPC CFI, CD Paris, Meril v SWAT
No cost decision concerning application for access to written pleadings and evidence (R. 150 RoP, R. 262 RoP). A decision on costs presupposes that there has been a decision on the merits of the dispute or for the determination of damages. For these purposes, a “decision on the merits” must be understood as a decision that concludes litigation proceedings, that is proceedings where the ascertainment of a right is sought by one party against another and is capable of producing the effects of res judicata on conflicting subjective positions and from which a situation of the defeat of one party with respect to another may arise, justifying the award of costs. Parties may not unilaterally submit written comments on opposing arguments absent express authorization from the Court (R. 156 RoP, R. 9 RoP). The Court has the discretionary power to allow the further exchange of written pleadings if it deems appropriate, if not essential, to hear from one or each party before rendering its decision on the matter. Incorrect citation of the legal grounds does not relieve the Court of its obligation to consider the motion where it is possible to identify the correct legal grounds based on the legal arguments and factual grounds put forward by the applicant in support of the application [Article 42(2) UPCA, Article 76 UPCA]. Use of the wrong workflow does not render a submission inadmissible where, as in the current situation, non-compliance with this procedural rule does not result in any prejudice (R. 4 RoP, R 9. RoP)

IPPT20250107, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Sanofi v Accord
Change in parties (R. 305 RoP, R. 306 RoP, R. 310 RoP). Sanofi-Aventis France, which ceased to exist, is replaced by Sanofi Winthrop Industrie. As Sanofi Winthrop Industrie is already party to the proceedings this replacement has no consequence on proceedings. Sanofi Winthrop Industrie is bound by the proceedings as now constituted. Since it is undisputed that Sanofi Winthrop Industrie succeeded Sanofi-Aventis France from the moment Sanofi-Aventis France ceased to exist, there is no need to order a formal stay. It is sufficient to order that Sanofi-Aventis France be replaced by Sanofi-Aventis France. Since this decision may be reversed, Claimant No 2 shall be designated "Sanofi Winthrop Industrie as successor to Sanofi-Aventis France" in addition to Claimant No 2, which remains "Sanofi Winthrop Industrie".

IPPT20250107, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Dyson v SharkNinja
Proceedings suspended at joint request of the parties (R. 295.d RoP)

IPPT20250107, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Avago v Tesla
Withdrawal of proceedings prior to final decision, each party bearing its own costs (R. 265 RoP). According to Rule 265.2 (c) RP, the Court shall also make a decision as to costs in accordance with Part 1 Chapter 5 when admitting the discontinuance of proceedings. No application by the parties is required for this decision; it is to be issued even without one. However, if the parties state that they do not request a decision on the parties' costs, this can be taken into account in the cost decision to be made. This statement is regularly understood to mean that no reimbursement of costs should take place between the parties and that each party should bear their own costs.
 

IPPT20250107, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, DexCom v Abbott
Withdrawal of infringement and revocation actions, no cost decision, 60% reimbursement of court fees (R. 265 RoP, R. 370 RoP). The decision takes into account the agreement reached between the parties. 

IPPT20250103, UPC CFI, CD Munich, Nanostring v Harvard
Applicant granted access (R. 262 RoP) to the written pleadings and evidence in Revocation action that has ended with a final decision of 17 October 2024 
 

IPPT20250102, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Huawei v Netgear
No bifurcation - party consent (R. 37.1 RoP, Article 33(3) UPCA. Both parties have argued in favour of the infringement action and the counterclaim for invalidity being heard together before the Munich Local Division. The panel agrees. There are no grounds, demonstrated or otherwise, that would require a different decision.