Latest substantive UPC decisions

• This was another procedural order in relation to an infringement action brought by TRUMPF, in which IPG filed a revocation counterclaim. TRUMPF filed a subsequent request for amendment of its patent and requested that this version of the patent be taken as the basis for its infringement proceedings under Rule 36 RoP.
• Under Rule 30.2 RoP, any subsequent request to amend the patent (that is, requests that follow the amendment proposed pursuant to a request under Rule 30.1 RoP) can only be admitted into the proceedings with the permission of the court.
• In exercising its discretion, the court must consider the principles of proportionality, flexibility, fairness and equity. The court should avoid allowing the patentee, by successively filing amendments, to deprive the opponent of the opportunity to react at an early stage and the court of the opportunity to deal with the requests in an appropriate manner. Thus, the court must take into account whether the new amendments would have been necessary at an earlier stage in response to arguments already submitted by the revocation claimant and whether the late request will cause delays in the proceedings.
• To allow the court to strike a reasonable balance between the conflicting interests, the patentee must substantiate its request, explaining why the later amendment is necessary and why it could not have been filed at an earlier date.
• In this case, the Düsseldorf LD rejected both of TRUMPF's requests, noting that it had not provided sufficient justification to enable the court to allow the amendment of the patent under Rule 30.2 RoP.

This analysis is based on a machine translation of a decision not available in English.

• Eyesmatch withdrew its infringement action against Microsoft prior to the closure of the written procedure and requested reimbursement of 60% of the court fees.
• Microsoft agreed to the withdrawal and confirmed that they would not request any reimbursement of costs, meaning that there was no need for a costs decision.
• The Düsseldorf LD confirmed that no cost decision is required under Rule 265.2(c) RoP where both parties have declared that a cost decision is not requested.
• The court made the order to reimburse Eyesmatch 60% of the court fees and confirmed that no costs decision was required.

• In these ongoing proceedings, MediaTek sought additional confidentiality protection under Rule 262A RoP for parts of their statement of defence that they claimed contained highly sensitive technical information and know-how, which was subject to internal confidentiality measures. MediaTek asked to limit access on Huawei's side to three named legal representatives.
• Huawei opposed, arguing that the redactions were too broad. They claimed that the submissions were largely “negative facts” that wouldn't enable any conclusions to be drawn about MediaTek's implementations, and maintained that a witness name is not confidential. Alternatively, they proposed access for more named individuals (nine, then six, then three), many already in the previously established FRAND Confidentiality Club or in a confidentiality club in national parallel proceedings before the Regional Court of Munich I.
• The Mannheim LD held that the technical content in the technical part of the statement of defence was protectable, stating that the balancing of interests to be carried out under Rule 262A.5 RoP favoured granting protection. Access was granted for six representatives from the existing FRAND Confidentiality Club or the club implemented in the parallel proceedings. The court noted that a further expansion of the confidentiality club for technical material should be avoided as it would be impractical to establish a differently structured confidentiality club for each round of pleadings.
• The court did, however, reject MediaTek's request for protection of a witness' name. It held that concrete submissions setting out the specific need for protection (for example, a poaching risk) are required, which were not given here.

• Ona Patents filed a patent infringement claim against the defendants. All of the defendants filed counterclaims for revocation. The Düsseldorf LD subsequently ordered Ona Patents to provide security for costs in the amount of €500,000.
• Prior to the closure of the written procedure, Ona Patents withdrew its infringement action and the defendants agreed to the withdrawal of their revocation counterclaims. The court allowed this withdrawal.
• Under Rule 370.9(b)(i) RoP, fixed and value-based fees may be reimbursed by 60% if an action is withdrawn before the closure of the written procedure. However, the court decided to apply Rule 370.9(b)(ii) RoP instead, which provides for reimbursement of 40% of the court fees if the action is withdrawn before the closure of the interim procedure. The court noted that all regular foreseen pleadings had been exchanged between the parties and that to produce this order required an in-depth examination of the matter by the judge-rapporteur, which justified the lower reimbursement rate.

• Washtower made an application for provisional measures (including a preliminary injunction) against the defendants for infringement of its patent (EP 755), which protects a cabinet for a washing machine and the method of manufacture. The application against the first defendant (Wasombouw) was withdrawn shortly after the application was filed. The decision relates to the remaining defendants.
• The defendants argued that the patent was invalid for added matter and lack of inventive step. They also maintained that they did not infringe the patent either literally or by equivalence because the challenged embodiments comprised an L-shaped strip made of plastic and not of metal, as the claims required.
• The Hague LD was sufficiently convinced that it was more likely than not that the patent was valid. On added matter, the defendants argued that the L-shaped retaining member introduced into claim 1 during examination of the patent constituted an impermissible amendment by adding matter. The court agreed with the EPO Board of Appeal's finding that the retaining member was disclosed independently of the cover plate in the application as filed and therefore it was more likely than not that the patent was not invalid for added matter.
• There was disagreement between the parties as to which prior art was the "realistic starting point" for the inventive step analysis. The court noted that it "tended to agree" with Washtower that an assembly manual referred to as D1 was not a realistic starting point, but noted that the EPO identified it as the closest prior art document. The Hague LD said that the issue could be left undecided at this preliminary stage: irrespective of whether D1 should or should not be the realistic starting point, the court held that D1 combined with any of the other prior art documents disclosed by the defendants did not prejudice the inventiveness of the claim.
• In considering infringement, the court applied the test for equivalence adopted previously by the Hague LD in Plant-e v Arkyne and found that it was more likely than not that the defendants infringed claim 1 of the patent. With both parties referencing this test in submissions, and in the absence of any guidance from the Court of Appeal as to what doctrine of equivalence test should be applied, the court saw no reason to deviate from the test applied in Plant-e v Arkyne.
• The court then went on to consider whether the preliminary injunction was necessary, holding that it was. The court noted that the price difference was such that it would undercut Washtower's pricing, giving rise to the risk of irreparable price erosion while proceedings on the merits take place. The court also agreed with Washtower's argument that these sorts of cabinets are purchased infrequently by the consumer therefore, without the injunction there was a likely risk of serious irretrievable loss of sales and market share.
• In considering the urgency requirement, the court was sufficiently convinced that Washtower acted without undue delay despite the defendants' assertion that they could have acted on receipt of the EPO's "intention to grant". The application was filed within two months of the publication of grant of the patent, which was not an undue delay.
• Lastly, the court held that it was sufficiently convinced that Washtower's interests outweighed the defendants' in the balance of interests. The court noted that the potential damage to the defendants should the injunction be overturned was "rather limited" and further mitigated by the imposition of a security deposit, which the court ordered in the sum of €75,000 (rather than the €500,000 requested by the defendants).
• In relation to the injunction, the court would have ordered security of €25,000; however, as the court also ordered recall of infringing products, it increased the security to €75,000 because of the potentially more disruptive nature of the recall, the costs involved and the damage to reputation.
• An order for information was also granted so far as necessary to stop further infringement.

• This decision concerned Ona Patents' application for a confidentiality request relating to an exhibit to a statement. Most of the confidential material consisted of third‑party contracts subject to confidentiality clauses, which had not been disclosed in full, and internal business documents not publicly disclosed.
• The judge-rapporteur in the Düsseldorf LD granted the application, stating that Ona Patents "did not request confidentiality for anything that the Defendants would not have requested if they had been ordered to present further facts and evidence".
• In judicial proceedings, access to documents containing confidential business information may, upon request, be restricted to a limited number of persons. Here, access on the defendants’ side was confined to their authorised representatives and staff (including experts and team members) and specified named individuals.
• The court also declined to permit the disclosure of the confidential information to the Munich District Court in parallel proceedings, stating that the mere allegation of similar arguments and the high relevance of documents in parallel proceedings did not justify waiving confidentiality.
• The requirements of Rule 262A RoP and Article 58 UPCA were met and a protective order was issued, with any culpable breach resulting in a penalty payment to be determined on a case by case basis.
• The court corrected this order on 10 September 2025 to explicitly clarify the documents classified as confidential within the meaning of Article 58 UPCA and Rule 262.2 RoP.

• Oerlikon was granted an ex parte order for the preservation of evidence under Article 60 UPCA and Rule 192 RoP in the Milan LD in 2023. It subsequently filed an infringement action against Himson, which filed a revocation counterclaim.
• The parties reached a settlement agreement and therefore requested that the entire litigation be terminated. On 22 July 2025, both partes filed a notice of abandonment of the action and the simultaneous acceptance of the opposing waiver under Rule 265 RoP (withdrawal of an action). The parties settled costs between them and did not request a costs order from the court.
• The Milan LD reminded the parties that according to the Court of Appeal, provided that there is no final decision in an action, a claimant may apply to withdraw its action pursuant to Rule 265.1 RoP.
• The court had no objections to the action being withdrawn and declared the proceedings closed with costs fully offset. However, it noted that the court fees would not be reimbursed as the waivers were filed after an oral hearing.

This analysis is based on a machine translation of a decision not available in English.

• This decision concerned an application by Microsoft for the protection of confidential information lodged in cost proceedings. The judge-rapporteur in the Paris CD found the application to be admissible and successful on the merits.
• Microsoft argued that the information in question should be treated as strictly confidential and accessible only by Suinno's legal representatives. Microsoft noted that the information pertained to invoices from its law firm to the client, including a list of the work carried out on the proceedings, specifying by whom, for what purpose  and at what rate. It maintained that this constituted highly sensitive business information for both Microsoft and its representatives, that it amounted to a trade secret, and that it was also privileged under Rule 287.1 RoP.
• The judge-rapporteur noted that according to EU case law, three cumulative conditions must be met in order for information to be considered confidential and to enjoy protection against disclosure: i) that it is known only to a limited number of persons; ii) that its disclosure is liable to cause serious harm to the person who has provided it or to third parties; and iii) that the interests liable to be harmed by disclosure are, objectively, worthy of protection
• The Paris CD held that the information regarding the number of hours spent on the case by the instructed representatives and the fees agreed upon between the parties was confidential; disclosure would reveal Microsoft's financial standing, litigation strategy, perceived patent value and resource allocation. This information also fell within the scope of attorney-client privilege under RoP 287.
• Pursuant to Rule 262.5 RoP, the judge-rapporteur concluded that the grounds Microsoft relied upon significantly outweighed the interests of Suinno in having full access. The judge-rapporteur therefore ordered that access to the information was restricted to Suinno's two legal representatives.
• The court dismissed the rest of Microsoft's request, including its request for predetermined penalties for non-compliance with the confidentiality protection order
• Related decisions can be found here and here.

• The defendants (Keysight) requested a stay of the infringement proceedings brought by Centripetal following the EPO Opposition Division's preliminary opinion suggesting that Centripetal's patent would be found invalid for added matter at the opposition hearing on 27 November 2025.
• The Mannheim LD refused the request.
• The UPC case was "ripe for a full-fledged hearing on 9/10 October 2025 including the validity of the patent". The outcome of the opposition hearing was unclear, and its reasoned decision might only be available a considerable period after the hearing.
• The court noted that it was preferable for the UPC to continue the case as it is also in the interest of justice to avoid conflicting decisions. The UPC's judgment would be available within 6 weeks of the hearing and therefore in time to "have bearing on the case before the EPO". It was also preferable "to decide on both aspects, infringement and validity as planned".
• A related decision is available here.

• The parties are engaged in parallel proceedings in the Munich CD and LD.
• Belparts requested that the Munich LD also hear the infringement counterclaim from the CD, pursuant to Rule 302(3) RoP, which relates to cases in the same division brought by a plurality of claimants or in respect of a plurality of patents. The alleged infringers in both actions (IMI) were from the same group of companies, and Belparts maintained that consolidation and a joint hearing would help ensure a consistent and uniform application of UPC law. IMI had consented to the proposed consolidation.
• Despite IMI's consent, the Munich LD refused the request.
• Rule 302(3) RoP requires that, in order to be consolidated, parallel actions should be pending "before the same local or regional division or the central division". However, these actions were pending between different divisions, the Munich CD and LD. The court noted that the hearing in the Munich CD would take place about 4 months earlier than the Munich LD hearing, so the Munich LD "will be aware of the outcome and can decide on its own case accordingly", and that the same technically qualified judge was on both panels which "will ensure consistent decisions".
• The parties might have been more successful if they had requested a connection joinder under Rule 340 RoP; however, this option was not suggested by the court.

• The Düsseldorf LD granted a preliminary injunction and an order for disclosure of information against the second defendant.
• This was an application for provisional measures brought by HP concerning two patents relating to printer cartridges. Service had not yet been effected against the first defendant, which is based in China, but had been effected on the second defendant, a German company that sells printer cartridges in a number of UPC member states. The decision therefore related only to the second defendant.
• After being served with the application, the second defendant informed the court of a settlement between the parties. Under this, the second defendant would not defend most of HP's requests, in respect of which "the court may issue a judgement by default against Defendant 2", and HP would withdraw its request for costs. HP duly did so and also requested a decision by default.
• Despite the parties' requests, the court proceeded by way of a regular order, rather than by default. A decision by default was not something to be considered for several reasons. Firstly, Rules 205 et seq RoP relating to provisional measures do not provide for a decision by default in this scenario.
• Secondly, only a "regular PI order" was consistent with the underlying issues. The defendant had been given the opportunity to file an objection to the application under Rule 209.1(a) RoP, and had decided not to. The court could therefore proceed by way of regular order as it was irrelevant that it had decided not to file an objection "for reasons outside of the court proceedings". When a defendant declines the invitation to file an objection, there is no reason to grant it the advantages of a decision by default. The court noted that the "associated possibility of setting aside the decision (see [Rule] 356 RoP) would conflict with the Applicant’s interest in effectively enforcing its patent in the PI proceedings".
• The court held that the fact that the applicant had also requested a decision by default did not prevent a regular order. Article 76(1) UPCA requires that the court "shall not award more than is requested". The court considered that its order fell within this framework, as HP had applied for the provisional measures and the request for a decision by default "merely supplement[ed]" but did not replace this application.
• The Düsseldorf LD proceeded to consider infringement and validity of the patents, noting that as the second defendant had not argued against validity there was no reason to doubt it. It considered that the balance of interests was in favour of granting the provisional measures, and that the applicant had acted with sufficient urgency. Accordingly, it granted the requested preliminary injunction and an order for disclosure of information against the second defendant.
• The court also considered whether to order HP to provide security under Rule 211.5 RoP to protect the defendant in case the court subsequently lifted the measures. This had not been requested by the parties, but was considered of the court's own motion. It noted that the second defendant had stated it would not challenge the measures, so there was "no reason to impose this burden on the Applicant."

• The claimant (Dai Nippon) brought infringement proceedings against the defendants (Zapp) in relation to Zapp's offering and selling metal plates/foils. This was a procedural order allowing a short extension for the filing of the defence to allow Zapp to include the results of laboratory tests.
• The Düsseldorf LD granted a one-week extension for the defence to be filed. This extension was to allow Zapp to receive the results of an analysis of their products by a laboratory and give them "just over a week…to evaluate the results and include them in the pleadings to be prepared". The court held it was sufficient as significant parts of the pleadings could be completed before the test results were available.
• A further extension to allow Zapp time to rely on results from a second laboratory that would take longer was refused. In this case, Zapp failed to show that the results were essential or that they could not have been obtained sooner.
• The Düsseldorf LD rejected Zapp's argument that the time required for Dai Nippon's analysis of the product before bringing its claim was relevant to how long it should have, including for reasons of equality of arms. The court stated that Dai Nippon's analysis was not subject to the time limits stipulated in the RoP and therefore did not need to be expedited by it. Accordingly, the time it took was irrelevant.

This analysis is based on a machine translation of a decision not available in English.

• This was a decision of the Court of Appeal on a request for discretionary review of a procedural order.
• CeraCon was the claimant in a counterclaim for revocation in pending infringement proceedings in the Mannheim LD. Its application to amend its revocation claim to introduce two novelty attacks had been rejected by the judge-rapporteur and again on review by the LD panel. It requested discretionary review of the Mannheim LD's order under Rule 220.3 RoP.
• The Court of Appeal refused CeraCon's request.
• CeraCon had failed to demonstrate that the Mannheim LD had been manifestly wrong in upholding the judge-rapporteur's order. Without it having provided "convincing explanations" as to why the prior art had previously (seemingly accidentally) been missed, the Mannheim LD "did not go beyond the boundaries of its discretion" in deciding that CeraCon had failed to show that it could not have made the amendment with reasonable diligence earlier in the proceedings, as required by Rule 263.2(a) RoP.

• This was a decision of the Court of Appeal on a request for discretionary review of a procedural order under Rule 220.3 RoP.
• The judge-rapporteur had rejected Centripetal's request for a further exchange of written pleadings following the launch of further allegedly infringing products by Keysight. Centripetal sought discretionary review.
• The Court of Appeal rejected Centripetal's request.
• Rule 36 RoP permits a party to make a reasoned request for permission for further exchanges of written pleadings. However, given the stage of proceedings, the proximity of the oral hearing and the fact it had taken Centripetal 4 months from the launch of Keysight's new products and 5 weeks from filing its rejoinder to the reply to the defence to make its request, the Court of Appeal held that the judge-rapporteur's decision was "not manifestly wrong". It remained open to Centripetal to bring separate actions in relation to the new products.
• The Court of Appeal also noted that Centripetal had not shown that the order raised a fundamental question of law or that its review was necessary to ensure a consistent application and interpretation of the RoP.

• This was a decision from the Paris CD on a preliminary objection raised by Seoul Viosys (SV).
• The respondent, Emporia, had filed a revocation action in the Paris CD against SV's patent relating to wafer level integrated chip on PCB (WICOP) and LED manufacturing.
• SV filed a preliminary objection, requesting that the action be rejected under Article 33(4) UPCA on the basis that there were already proceedings "between the same parties relating to the same patent" in another division.
• SV alleged that Emporia was merely a "straw company" of the defendant in its parallel infringement proceedings in the Düsseldorf LD (ex-pert klein GmbH). In that case, the court had rejected ex-pert klein's counterclaim for revocation.
• SV pointed to the facts that Emporia supplied the allegedly infringing products to ex-pert klein, which acted as its distributor, and that the parties were represented by the same lawyers, relied on the same documents and arguments and had a "concerted strategy". SV argued that it was "an impermissible circumvention of the UPC's jurisdictional framework, allowing a “straw” party to have a “second chance” at invalidating the patent at issue."
• The Paris CD rejected the argument.
• It considered that the "straw company" theory has a legal basis in EU law and may be relevant for the purpose of assessing the "same parties" under Article 33(4) UPCA. However, there was no proof that Emporia "was created or used as a nominee for ex-pert klein GmbH to carry out specific initiatives concerning exclusively the latter’s business activities". The fact that the companies had "substantially overlapping defence strategies" did not mean that they were not autonomous entities, and it was "entirely reasonable" for a supplier and distributor to coordinate their defensive strategies.
• The court reiterated that the UPC "framework does not exclude that a patent may be attacked by different subjects, even if linked by organizational ties or commercial relationships, and by the means of different claims, even if structured in the same grounds of invalidity", citing the Paris CD's previous decision in Meril Italy v Edwards Lifesciences.

• Cilag and Ethicon, both part of the Johnson & Johnson group, brought applications for a preliminary injunction against Rivolution for alleged infringement of a patent in the group's portfolio relating to cartridges for medical stapling devices.
• Although The Hague LD had jurisdiction and Cilag had standing to sue, the court dismissed its application on the basis that the urgency requirement was not met as it had acted with unreasonable delay. The court also dismissed Ethicon's application, but this was due to a lack of standing to sue.
• The court noted that Rule 211.4 RoP ensures that an applicant whose conduct "indicates that it is not in a hurry" cannot expect assistance from the court by way of provisional measures. This is because the main proceedings in the UPC are to be concluded within approximately one year and therefore a patent holder who acts with unreasonable delay should not be allowed to "jump the queue". Despite this, the court stated that the reverse conclusion does not apply. That is, just because an applicant has acted quickly does not mean that provisional measure must be granted. The provisional measures must also be objectively urgent/necessary.
• The Hague LD accepted that a party must be given time to consider the potential infringement to substantiate and prepare the preliminary injunction application. However, the court explained that Cilag had become aware of the infringement in November 2024 when Rivolution promoted a study involving the cartridges at an industry event in Frankfurt. Cilag had obtained an ex parte injunction in Germany against a separate company based on alleged infringement of the patent in suit. The court noted that enough evidence had been gathered to file that ex parte application in the German national court and therefore it was not clear why Cilag had not immediately acted. Its UPC application for a preliminary injunction was not filed until April 2025.
• Cilag argued that the urgency "revived" in April 2025 because it was then that it became aware that "the extent of the infringement by Rivolution was much larger than previously known". This argument was swiftly rejected by The Hague LD, which stated that Rivolution's actions were to be expected and did not create new urgency. Cilag should have realised in November 2024 that there was a risk of price erosion.
• As temporal urgency had not been established, the court did not go on to consider the objective urgency/necessity of the measures or any other defences raised by Rivolution.

• This decision concerned an infringement action brought by City Glass in relation to its patent concerning a glazing system, in which it alleged infringement by Maars' Horizon system. Maars counterclaimed for invalidity.
• Claim interpretation – particularly of one feature relating "turning movements" and whether this should be understood as a motion or a torque – was considered to be crucial to both infringement and validity. The Hague LD therefore started by interpreting the claim. Having done so, it found the patent valid but not infringed.
• Maars had counterclaimed for revocation based on insufficiency, anticipation and lack of inventive step. The court dismissed the attacks giving brief reasons.
• City Glass had argued that Maars' Horizon system infringed either literally or by equivalence. The court concluded that the Horizon products lacked two features of the claim, 1.4 and 1.6, on a literal interpretation. City Glass had not argued equivalence for feature 1.6, so the court found that the products did not infringe. Given that, the court considered that it was not necessary for it to determine equivalence for feature 1.4.

• This was a procedural order in an infringement action brought by Decathlon in the Mannheim LD relating to patent for a self-deployable tent.
• The judge-rapporteur accepted Decathlon's request to disregard sections of the defendants' rejoinder to Decathlon's application to amend its patent and relating to the validity of the patent in suit as granted.
• Decathlon argued that the RoP restrict the content of a rejoinder to an application to amend the patent to a response to the reply to the defence to the application to amend. The defendants submitted that the impugned sections did not contain new facts or arguments, but merely summarised the parties' arguments for the convenience of the court.
• The court rejected this argument. Rule 32 RoP provides that "[t]he Rejoinder shall be limited to the matters raised in the Reply". It was irrelevant that the defendants were merely providing a summary of the arguments.
• Permitting the defendants to go beyond what is allowed in the RoP would give them an "inappropriate advantage" over the patentee, for whom no further written submission is provided for in the RoP. Further, it is up to the judge-rapporteur to request a summary if required.