Progress Maschinen & Automation v AWM (CFI, 8 July 2025)

Date	8 July 2025
Court	CFI
Division	Milan (IT) Local Division
Type of action	Generic application
Registry reference	App_31860/2025 · ORD_32533/2025
Parties	Progress Maschinen & Automation AG

Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry

Dhenne Avocats represents claimants and defendants in European patent disputes before the Unified Patent Court, including the Paris divisions.

Contact the firm

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 8 July 2025 (UPC_CFI_178/2024 and UPC_CFI_432/2024), the judge rapporteur Perrotti (Milan Local Division) set the value of Progress Maschinen & Automation’s infringement action against AWM and Schnell at EUR 2,000,000, and the same for the revocation counterclaim, the parties having failed to agree. The order shows the method applied where no party produces economic evidence.

Question

How should the value in dispute be set, for the purposes of the scale of ceilings on costs, where the parties disagree on the economic data without producing documents?

Decision

The judge rapporteur takes into account the parties’ assessments and the objective interest pursued by the claimant when filing the action, together with the overall complexity of the case: the main claim and ancillary requests, the revocation counterclaim and the application to amend the patent. The claimant put forward EUR 2,000,000, based on the machine price (EUR 1.3 million each), six sales a year, eight years of remaining patent life and a royalty of about 3%, the defendants disputed those figures. Since no party produced documents, the judge applied principles of proportionality, flexibility and fairness, noted the high commercial value of the machines concerned and adopted the claimant’s figure. The panel may revisit the value when deciding the merits.

Key points for practice

Practical point: a party disputing the other side’s valuation must support its position with documents, otherwise the court may adopt the figure stated in the statement of claim.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure: Rules 22, 104 and 370.6

Related decisions

PROGRESS MASCHINEN & AUTOMATION v AWM, 27 October 2025, decision on the merits in the same proceedings.

Prepared by Dhenne Avocats from the official decision, consulted on 10 October 2026. The database is updated every week, on Friday. Only the official text is authoritative.

Going further

Lexicon: Written procedure (UPC), Court fees and costs (UPC).

Source and translations

Official source: Unified Patent Court registry link recorded in the record
Original language: not recorded
Translation available: no translation recorded the firm’s French record is a summary, not a translation
Date checked: not recorded

Only the official text is authoritative. A machine translation is never presented as official, republishing a third-party document requires a verified basis in rights, and a link to the source is preferred.

Follow this case

Proceedings, related decisions, appeals, parties and patents as recorded in the registry and in the Dhenne Avocats corpus. Each link states its source.

Proceedings

No case number recorded in this record.

Parties

claimantProgress Maschinen & Automation AG11 decisions in the corpus Follow this party

Exact name as it appears in the record, group affiliation only where sourced and dated.

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

No other decision in the corpus bears the same case number, and no appeal is documented in the corpus to date.

What the record states

Nature of the act: Generic application
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary): La valeur de l'action en contrefaçon et celle de la demande reconventionnelle en nullité sont fixées à 2 000 000 euros chacune, conformément à l'évaluation de la demanderesse, faute de pièces produites par les parties.
Appeal: No appeal documented in the corpus, this does not mean that no appeal was lodged.
Instance: First-instance decision, whether it has become final is not recorded.

Related decisions cited in the analyses

Progress Maschinen & Automation v AWM (CFI, 27 October 2025) cited in this record

Scope: Dhenne Avocats corpus. Registry-based links are marked “official number”; links derived from the analyses are marked as such. An erroneous link can be withdrawn without deleting any record.

Receive an alert

Weekly summary of new records and substantive updates matching what you follow. Address confirmed by email, unsubscribe at any time, one email per week even where several of your follows match.