Decisions of the Unified Patent Court recorded under "Request for a discretionary review (RoP 220.3)" in UPC Litigation Watch, the case law database maintained by Dhenne Avocats.
UPC decisions and orders since 1 June 2023. “Decision with commentary” means the entry contains an analysis by Dhenne Avocats. “Summary available” identifies a summary; “Reference” identifies a record without a detailed case note. Open the entry for the source and, where available, the facts, reasoning and practical implications. The official decision is authoritative.
Combinable filters, search within the records or the full text of the decisions, copy reference, selection and export. The keyword and reference search above remains available.
27 decisions recorded
In an order of 10 July 2026 (UPC_CoA_95/2026), the standing judge of the Court of Appeal rejects the request for discretionary review lodged by Adobe Inc. and Adobe Systems Software Ireland against the order of the Paris Local Division of 1 June…
Read the analysisIn an order of 10 June 2026 (UPC_CoA_85/2026), the standing judge of the Court of Appeal dismisses Speed Care Mineral's request for discretionary review of the EUR 1 million value set for the counterclaim for revocation by the Hamburg Local Division in…
Read the analysisBy order of 26 May 2026 (UPC_CoA_74/2026), the standing judge of the Court of Appeal rejected Advanced Standard Communication LLC's (ASC) request for discretionary review of the order of 24 April 2026 in which the panel of the Munich Local Division required…
Read the analysisBy order of 19 May 2026 (UPC_CoA_67/2026), the standing judge of the Court of Appeal rejected the request for discretionary review and the application for suspensive effect lodged by Advanced Standard Communication LLC (ASC) against the Munich Local Division's order of 23…
Read the analysisBy order of 13 May 2026, issued in German (UPC_CoA_53/2026), Judge Bart van den Broek, ruling for the Court of Appeal on Huawei's request for discretionary review under Rule 220.3 RoP, allowed the appeal against the Munich Local Division's order of 26…
Read the analysisOn an application for discretionary review by Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd., the Court of Appeal grants leave to appeal against the decision of the Munich Local Division of 26 March 2026, which had upheld the access granted to Quinn Emanuel Urquhart &…
Read the analysisIn an order of 8 May 2026 (UPC_CoA_35/2026), the standing judge of the Court of Appeal rejects Adobe's request for discretionary review (Rule 220.3 RoP) of the Paris Local Division's refusal to dismiss, under Rule 334(h) RoP, KEEEX's claims concerning non-UPC parts…
Read the analysisIn an order of 28 April 2026 (UPC_CoA_56/2026), the standing judge of the Court of Appeal dismisses Optopol's request for discretionary review of the Düsseldorf Local Division's order of 1 April 2026.
Read the analysisBy an order of 10 March 2026 (UPC_CoA_37/2026), the standing judge of the Court of Appeal dismissed the request for discretionary review (Rule 220.3 RoP) filed by the Angelalign companies against the Düsseldorf Local Division's order of 26 February 2026 which, in…
Read the analysisBy order of 26 February 2026 (UPC_CoA_34/2026), the standing judge of the Court of Appeal dismissed as inadmissible EOFlow's request for discretionary review and its auxiliary request for leave to appeal.
Read the analysisIn an order of 29 January 2026 (UPC_CoA_931/2025), the President of the Court of Appeal, sitting as standing judge, closed the proceedings on the request for discretionary review (Rule 220.3) filed by Alpinestars S.p.A.
Read the analysisBy an order of 6 January 2026 (UPC_CoA_2/2026), the standing judge of the Court of Appeal dismissed the request for discretionary review (Rule 220.3) filed by six Angelalign companies against the Düsseldorf Local Division's order of 16 December 2025.
Read the analysisBy an order of 2 September 2025 (UPC_CoA_807/2025, APL_35616/2025), the standing judge of the Court of Appeal denied CeraCon's request for discretionary review of the Mannheim Local Division's order of 8 August 2025, which had refused it leave to add a new…
Read the analysisBy an order of 1 September 2025 (UPC_CoA_805/2025, APL_35593/2025), the standing judge of the Court of Appeal denied Centripetal's request for discretionary review of the Mannheim Local Division's order of 20 August 2025, which, without granting leave to appeal, had refused a…
Read the analysisBy order of 14 May 2025, issued in the two joined appeals UPC_CoA_423/2025 and UPC_CoA_424/2025, the standing judge of the Court of Appeal dismissed the request for discretionary review filed by Hisense, TCL and LG against the Mannheim Local Division's refusal to…
Read the analysisBy order of 14 January 2025 (UPC_CoA_651/2024), the second panel of the Court of Appeal, on discretionary review, set aside the order of the judge-rapporteur of the Mannheim Local Division of 16 October 2024, which had required Total Semiconductor to provide EUR…
Read the analysisBy order of 23 December 2024 (UPC_CoA_826/2024), the standing judge of the Court of Appeal rejected Microsoft’s request for discretionary review of the Paris Central Division’s order of 26 November 2024 granting Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing leave to reduce the…
Read the analysisBy order of 27 November 2024 (UPC_CoA_651/2024, APL_59329/2024), the standing judge of the Court of Appeal (I.
Read the analysisIn an order of 15 October 2024 (UPC_CoA_570/2024), the standing judge of the Court of Appeal dismissed Microsoft’s request for discretionary review of the Paris Central Division’s order of 16 September 2024.
Read the analysisIn an order of 9 October 2024 (UPC_CoA_586/2024), the standing judge of the Court of Appeal dismissed as inadmissible Suinno’s request for discretionary review of the Paris Central Division’s order of 30 September 2024 requiring it to provide security for Microsoft’s costs…
Read the analysisIn an order of 30 September 2024 (UPC_CoA_543/2024, UPC_CoA_544/2024 and UPC_CoA_545/2024), a standing judge of the Court of Appeal rejected the request for discretionary review lodged by six Xiaomi companies, defendants to three infringement actions brought by Panasonic before the Mannheim Local…
Read the analysisBy an order of 6 September 2024 (UPC_CoA_489/2024), the standing judge of the Court of Appeal rejected Motorola Mobility's request for discretionary review of the Munich Local Division's order of 6 August 2024, which had refused it leave to change its claim…
Read the analysisIn an order of 21 August 2024 (UPC_CoA_469/2024), the standing judge of the Court of Appeal dismissed the request for discretionary review filed by AYLO PREMIUM, AYLO FREESITES and AYLO Billing against a confidentiality order of the Mannheim Local Division of 22…
Read the analysisIn an order of 21 August 2024 (UPC_CoA_454/2024) the Court of Appeal dismissed Microsoft’s request for discretionary review of the order of the judge-rapporteur of the Paris Central Division of 2 July 2024, which had refused to reject as manifestly inadmissible the…
Read the analysisBy order of 21 March 2024 (UPC_CoA_486/2023, APL_595643/2023), the Court of Appeal set aside the order of the judge-rapporteur of the Munich Local Division of 11 December 2023, which had held inadmissible Netgear's request under Rule 333 RoP for the panel to…
Read the analysis