Rule 105 – Holding the interim conference

1. The interim conference should, where practicable, be held by telephone conference or by video conference.

2. On request by a party, subject to paragraph 1 and the approval of the judge-rapporteur, the interim conference may be held in Court. If the interim conference is held in Court, it shall be open to the public unless the Court decides to make it, to the extent necessary, confidential in the interests of one or both parties or third parties or in the general interests of justice or public order.

3. The judge-rapporteur may hold the interim conference in any language agreed by the parties’ representatives.

4. Rule 103 shall apply mutatis mutandis.

5. Following the interim conference, the judge-rapporteur shall issue an order setting out the decisions taken.

Case Law:

Court of First Instance

IPPT20260213, UPC CFI, LD Milan, Pirelli v SYR
Order setting out decisions taken at interim conference (Rule. 105.5 RoP). Withdrawal of preliminary objection regarding failure to serve application for interim relief, admissibility of photographs and seized product samples, value of the action set at € 500.000

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

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

IPPT20251103, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, Adeia v Disney
Orders following interim conference (R. 105.5). Value of the main claim and counterclaim set at €12,000,000. Fee difference for the main claim to be paid by Adeia. (R. 371.4). Request for confidentiality granted as submitted by Disney. (Rule 262A)

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

IPPT20251010, UPC CFI, CD Munich, Wirplast v Vilpe
Orders following interim conference (Rule 105 RoP.) Defendant allowed to re-order auxiliary requests. Warning letter submitted as attachment to Claimant´s Reply admitted into proceedings. 

IPPT20250915, UPC CFI LD Munich, Sanofi v Accord
Decisions taken at the interim conference (Rule 105.5 RoP). Parties granted time to comment on the pending decision from the EPO BoA decision. All counterclaims will be heard together, the infringement actions will be heard separately. The experts will be heard regarding their written submissions and will be answering questions formulated by the Judge Rapporteur.

IPPT20250821, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Hartmann Packaging v Omni-Pac

Closure of the interim procedure, instructions for oral hearing (R. 105.5 RoP, R. 110.1 RoP): skilled person, claim features, table for (provisional) damages, claimant should prepare to explain in the oral proceedings, based on its understanding of the technical teaching protected by the contested patent, […], parties are instructed to upload to the CMS any sketches or documents to which they may wish to refer for clarification during the oral hearing but which have not yet been submitted to the file.

IPPT20250815, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, HL Display v Black Sheep
Order following interim conference, rescheduling hearing date and setting the value of the dispute at € 500.000 (R. 105.5 RoP).

IPPT20250721, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Lenovo v Asustek
Order following interim conference on FRAND  (R. 105.5 RoP).regarding submitting arguments by Asus and response by Lenovo until 1 September 2025 and proposals by the parties for topics for interim hearing of 18 September 2025.

IPPT20250718, UPC CFI, CD Milan, bioMérieux v Labrador Diagnostics
Order following interim conference in revocation action (R. 105.5 RoP). bioMérieux to inform  the Court: which claims of the patent no longer to maintain; which invalidity attacks are the most promising, which attacks the discussion during the OH will then focus on and which attacks (starting from those attacks) the Court’s preparation for the OH will also mainly focus on, and identify which invalidity attacks (added matter, novelty and inventive step, and for the last one in which combination of prior art documents) against which requests she would like to prioritise; whether there are (any material) differences between the validity attacks in the Claim for revocation case (48305/2024) on the one hand and the Counterclaim for revocation (in case 54050/2024) on the other hand. Labrador to file: the main request and the Auxiliary Requests renumbered in both cases.

IPPT20250717, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Sanofi v Accord Healthcare
Order following interim conference (R. 105.5 RoP). Following a decision to uphold the patent by EPO BoA and a French first instance decision invalidating the French part or the European patent.

IPPT20250715, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Lenovo v ASUSTek
Case management order on interim conference on the subject of FRAND (R. 105.2 RoP) 

IPPT20250714, UPC CFI, CD Munich, Baussmann v Raimund Beck Nageltechnik
Order following interim conference (R. 105.5 RoP).

IPPT20250709, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Total Semiconductor v Texas Instruments 
Preliminary remarks for the preparation of the oral hearing (R. 105 RoP)

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

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

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

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

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

IPPT20250423, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Dish v Aylo

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

IPPT20250303, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Headwater v Samsung
Order setting out decisions taken at interim conference (R. 105.5 RoP): 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

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

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

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 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.

IPPT20241220, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Edwards Lifesciences v Meril
Leave to amend (R. 263 RoP, R. 105(5) RoP): respective claims in infringement action and counterclaim to add Romania as wished by both parties; details of the way in which the information is to be provided by the defendants, the request falls under Rule 13 RoP. 

IPPT20241217, UPC CFI, LD Milan, Oerlikon v Himson
Order setting out decisions taken at the interim conference (R. 105(5) RoP)
 

IPPT20241210, UPC CFI, RD Nordic-Baltic, Edwards v Meril
Order setting out decisions taken at interim conference (R. 105.5 RoP) regarding Value of the case; Not rescheduling the oral hearing because of parallel proceedings at EPO (see also: IPPT20241211, UPC CFI, RD Nordic-Baltic, Edwards v Meril); Romanian ratification of UPCA; Claimant’s request to exclude/disregard certain attacks on inventive step (additional starting points as direct response to Claimant’s position, except for two documents (excluded as late filed); Claimant’s request to exclude/disregard some attacks based on added matter; Request to declare auxiliary requests inadmissible; Admissibility of arguments based on equivalence; Request to exclude/disregard a ground for non-infringement of claim 2; How to deal with Public Interest Defence; Request for a referral to the CJEU; Request for a court expert and “offer” to hear party experts; Practical aspects of hearing.

IPPT20241126, UPC CFI, LD Paris, C-Kore Systems v Novawell
Order setting out decisions taken at interim conference (R. 105.5 RoP). Regarding execution of Saisie Order by court appointed expert (R. 196 RoP), confidentiality order (R. 262A RoP), dismissal of request to plead in French, notions regarding claim construction and validity, value of the case, time frame oral hearing.

IPPT20241127, UPC CFI, LD Milan, Oerlikon v Himson
Interim conference held by video conference (R. 105 RoP)

IPPT20241125, UPC CFI, LD Milan, Oerlikon v Bhagat
Order setting following interim conference  (R. 105 RoP)

IPPT20241007, UPC CFI, RD Nordic-Baltic, Abbott v Dexcom
Order following interim conference (R. 105 RoP). Request to change claim dismissed (R. 263 RoP). Request should have been in the application, not in an annex; changes asked are not mere corrections, could have been formulated earlier and extend the cope of the injunction. No need for alternative claims as the Court may grant the relief in full or in part as requested (Article 76.1 UPCA). Application to provide information dismissed as disproportionate (Article 67 UPCA, Article 8 Enforcement Directive, Rule 191 RoP). The Court order has to be as precise as possible, so that the obligated person may understand without a doubt what kind of information one has to provide. Heller document dismissed as late filed ground for revocation (R. 44 RoP). The Heller document was submitted to the Court by Defendants on 12 August 2024 in its Reply to the Defence to Revocation. The Court is in the position that all the ground for revocation should have been presented in the counterclaim.

IPPT20230917, UPC CFI, LD Brussels, OrthoApnea
Order following interim conference (R. 105 RoP). Parties need to indicate at the oral hearing how to balance the requested lifting of the seizure (of evidence) on counterfeiting (‘Order to Preserve Evidence’) under R 198(1) RoP, while making use of the findings in execution of the descriptive seizure. Value of the proceedings set at the lowest possible amount of € 250.000 in the absence of arguments or evidence of of a higher amount. (Rule 104 RoP). Whether or not a valuation is ‘sufficient’ in the light of possible recoverable costs (in application of R. 152(3) RoP) does not concern an element to be considered in assessing the valuation of the proceedings. Use of pleading notes and/or visual representations (including in the form of a PPT presentation) as (pleading) aids will be permitted (R. 112 RoP). 

IPPT20240909, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Huawei v Netgear
Case management order regarding and following separate hearing (R. 334(d) RoP, R. 105.5 RoP, R. 106 RoP). The video conference of 19 February 2024 is to be regarded as a separate hearing in accordance with Rule 334.d RoP.

IPPT20240906, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Edwards Lifesciences v Meril
Order after interim conference (Rule 105.5 RoP). Leave to unconditionally limit claim and new auxiliary claim equal to the previous main claim (Rule 263.3 RoP). Request for stay and dismissal to be argued amd decided at oral hearing (Rule 295 RoP). Panel decided on 5 September 2024 that the oral hearing is not re-scheduled and that the question of a stay is to be argued and decided at the oral hearing. Requests to hear parties’ experts or appoint a court expert refused. 

IPPT20240830, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Huawei v Netgear
Case management order (Rule 101 RoP) following interim conference (Rule 105 RoP) in FRAND case regarding taking of evidence, submission of further documents, panel decision on appeal during oral hearing, objections to delay, non-technical defence, provision for security, preparation for oral hearing.

IPPT20240318, UPC CFI, CD Munich, Astellas v Healios
Order following interim conference (Rule 105(5) RoP): 1. Document D18 is admitted into the proceedings. The parties and the judge-rapporteur agreed that D18 was admitted into the proceedings on the condition that the Defendant has until 11 April 2024 to file a succinct reply to the submission and the declaration, possibly including a short reply expert report, of which the length should be similar to Claimant´s submissions and which should be strictly in reply to points raised in D18 and the Claimant´s submission. 2. The value of the proceedings for the purpose of applying the scale of ceilings for recoverable costs is set at 4,000,000 EUR (four million euros) (Rule 152 RoP). 3. Parties are allowed to file additional exhibits relating to costs until 11 June 2024 for all costs incurred until that date. This submission may be updated by a further submission to be lodged at the latest noon CET on 24 June 2024. 4. The date and time for the oral hearing is confirmed for 25 June 2024, 09.30 CET. 

IPPT20240219, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Huawei v Netgear
Interim decisions following case management hearing (Rule 334(d) RoP, Rule 336 RoP, (Rule 105(5) RoP): Reserving right to schedule an interim conference (Rule 35(b) RoP). Allowing pleadings until the conclusion of the written procedure, which in addition to the topics addressed in the Rules of Procedure, may also address topics that have been raised at the hearing, provided that they do so immediately in the earliest written submission. Setting end date for written procedure. Setting date for oral hearing at 18 June 2024. The language of the hearing will be English (language of the proceedings is German). . Setting value of infringement action at € 1 million, of the three nullity counterclaims at € 1 million and of the proceedings at € 2 million. 

IPPT20240131, UPC CFI, CD Munich, Nanostring v Harvard

Order after interim conference (Rule 105(5) RoP). Later filed amendments, auxiliary requests (Rule 30(2) RoP, Rule 50(2) RoP). No legal basis for pre-emptively and categorically ruling out the submission of any further auxiliary requests or to order the Defendant to make the auxiliary requests more convergent. The judge-rapporteur emphasized the front-loaded character of UPC proceedings, also where it concerns auxiliary requests (with reference to 50.2 Rule in connection with Rule 30.2 RoP). Last-minute requests and submissions are not what is intended in UPC proceedings. Front loaded proceedings and late filing (Rule 263 RoP) Parties are hereby informed that any applications to change their case will be duly considered – without prejudice to whether such applications will be granted or not – until 15 March 2024. Amendments introduced after that date will be presumed to be in violation of the requirements of Rule 263.2(a) RoP. Document filed by the Claimant with the Reply to the Defence to Revocation not disregarded as late-filed, but admitted; it was agreed that the Defendant would get the opportunity to respond to the submissions of the Claimant based on document D46 within 6 weeks after the date of the interim conference, in a written submission having a maximum of 10 pages. Defendant subsequently withdrew its objection. Value of the proceeding for recoverable costs (Rule 104(j) RoP,  Rule 152.3 RoP). Parties were in agreement of the value of the proceedings being set at EUR 7,500,000 (seven and a half million euro). The Court did not have any objections. The value of the proceedings is set accordingly. Reasonable and proportionate legal costs (article 69 UPCA). In order for the parties and the Court to assess whether costs incurred are indeed reasonable and proportionate and whether or not equity requires otherwise, the Court and parties must have access to information showing at least a detailed description of the number of hours spent working on this particular case, by whom, what for and at what rate. The same applies to any expenses incurred. To this end, the Court will allow the filing of additional exhibits relating to costs until two weeks prior to the hearing (3 April 2024) for all costs incurred until that date. This submission may be updated by a further submission to be lodged at the latest noon CET on the day before the hearing (16 April 2024). The last submission may include an estimate of costs incurred for the hearing itself. The judge-rapporteur informed the parties that the Court will, in principle, respect an agreement between the parties on the amount of costs that is deemed reasonable and proportionate.

IPPT20240123, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Krausmaffei v Troester

Order after interim conference ((Rule 104 RoP, Rule 105(5) RoP), held via video conference before the judge-rapporteur together with two other members of the panel: determining the date at which the written procedure ends, confirming the date of the oral hearing, setting deadlines for submissions, ordering the parties to submit a preliminary estimate of the costs (same date as end date of written procedure) and setting the value of the action at € 2 million. The recording of the interim hearing is stored [...] and can be listened to on the premises of the Local Chamber Munich in accordance with Rule 106 RoP.

IPPT20231003, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Huawei v Netgear

Workflows.  The exclusion of the public from the interim hearing and the oral proceedings is governed by Rules 105.2 and 115 RoP. Separate workflows are not available in this respect. Consequently, applications relating to this must be submitted in the workflow of the main proceedings (here: infringement proceedings).