These decisions are recorded in UPC Litigation Watch, the Unified Patent Court case law database maintained by Dhenne Avocats. Every entry links to the official decision.
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.
545 decisions recorded
By decision of 24 February 2026 (UPC_CoA_10/2026), the judge-rapporteur of the Court of Appeal granted Gowling WLG, a non-party firm, access to ten pleadings and documents in the appeal Sumi Agro v Syngenta (UPC_CoA_523/2024, EP 2 152 073), subject to redaction of…
Read the analysisIn a decision of 24 February 2026 (UPC_CoA_9/2026), the judge-rapporteur of the Court of Appeal partly granted the law firm Gowling WLG access to three written pleadings lodged on appeal in the dispute between Boehringer Ingelheim and Zentiva Portugal concerning EP 1…
Read the analysisIn an order of 18 February 2026 (UPC_CoA_889/2025), the Court of Appeal set aside the orders of the Munich Local Division (UPC_CFI_114/2025) requiring Syntorr, a Cypriot company and proprietor of EP 3 835 470, to provide EUR 2,000,000 as security for costs…
Read the analysisIn an order of 18 February 2026 (UPC_CoA_19/2026), the Court of Appeal refused suspensive effect to Guardant Health's appeal against the EUR 400,000 interim award of costs made against it by the Paris Local Division on 23 January 2026, after its application…
Read the analysisBy order of 18 February 2026 (UPC_CoA_890/2025), the Court of Appeal, on discretionary review, set aside the Munich Local Division's orders requiring Syntorr, claimant in an infringement action on EP 2 670 898 against three Arthrex companies, to provide security for costs…
Read the analysisBy decision of 18 February 2026 (UPC_CoA_744/2025 and UPC_CoA_750/2025, EP 3 167 888), the standing judge of the Court of Appeal permitted Samsung Bioepis to withdraw its applications for leave to appeal the cost decisions issued by the Hamburg Local Division on…
Read the analysisBy order of 18 February 2026 in the joined proceedings UPC_CoA_528/2024 and UPC_CoA_529/2024 (EP 3 666 797), the Court of Appeal rejected Sanofi and Regeneron's request for suspensive effect of their application for rehearing of the decision of 25 November 2025, which…
Read the analysisIn a decision of 17 February 2026, given in the joined appeals UPC_CoA_302/2025 and UPC_CoA_305/2025, the Court of Appeal set aside in full the Mannheim Local Division decision of 31 January 2025, which had revoked Rematec's EP 2 548 648, concerning a…
Read the analysisThe Court of Appeal dismisses Huawei’s appeals against the orders of the Munich Local Division of 28 November 2025 granting TP-Link access to written pleadings in the closed actions between Huawei and Netgear concerning the patent asserted against TP-Link (paras.
Read the analysisIn an order of 17 February 2026 (UPC_CoA_937/2025 and UPC_CoA_938/2025), the judge-rapporteur of the Court of Appeal refused the bioMérieux companies, appealing the Milan Central Division decision of 23 October 2025 maintaining Labrador Diagnostics' EP 3 756 767 in amended form, both…
Read the analysisThe Court of Appeal declares admissible the appeal lodged by Valeo Systèmes d’Essuyage under Rule 220.2 RoP against the order of the judge-rapporteur of the Paris Central Division of 23 December 2025.
Read the analysisIn a decision of 9 February 2026 (UPC_CoA_8/2026), given in German by a standing judge, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal of PAPST LICENSING GmbH & Co. KG against the Paris Central Division's decision upholding the EPO's refusal to register unitary…
Read the analysisThe Court of Appeal holds inadmissible the appeal by EOFlow Co., Ltd. against the order of the Milan Central Division of 4 December 2025 (UPC_CFI_1167/2025), which, at the request of Insulet Corporation, had imposed penalty payments of EUR 150,000 for non-compliance with…
Read the analysisIn an order of 4 February 2026 (UPC_CoA_891/2025), the Court of Appeal dismissed Centripetal Limited's appeal against the Mannheim Local Division's order of 2 October 2025 which, on Palo Alto Networks, Inc.'s request for review, had revoked the saisie order based on…
Read the analysisIn an order of 3 February 2026 (UPC_CoA_8/2025), given in Italian by the judge-rapporteur of the Court of Appeal, the EUR 19,000 security that Bhagat Textile Engineers had deposited for the costs of Oerlikon Textile GmbH & Co KG was released and…
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 analysisAccess by an employee of the opposing party is necessary where the confidential licence agreements are those on which the patent holder bases its arguments on FRAND terms, a central aspect of the case (para.
Read the analysisBeing an employee of a party is not in itself a ground for refusing access to highly confidential information (para. 27). Excluding employees would severely restrict the party’s freedom to choose who represents it and would compromise its right to an effective…
Read the analysisBy a decision of 26 January 2026, the President of the Court of Appeal dismissed a European Patent Attorney's petition for review of the Registrar's decision of 15 September 2025 refusing to enter him on the list of UPC representatives.
Read the analysisIn the appeal brought by Merz Pharmaceuticals LLC, Merz Therapeutics GmbH and Merz Pharma France against the order of the Paris Local Division of 21 November 2025 (UPC_CFI_697/2025), which had refused their application for provisional measures against Viatris Santé based on French…
Read the analysisBy an order of 16 January 2026 (UPC_CoA_935/2025), the Court of Appeal refused suspensive effect for the appeal against The Hague Local Division's default decision of 21 October 2025, which found that the "Cayene" mushroom strain infringed Amycel's EP 1 993 350.
Read the analysisThe Court of Appeal allows Juul Labs International, Inc. to withdraw its appeal (UPC_CoA_5/2025) against the decision of the Paris Central Division of 5 November 2024 (UPC_CFI_309/2023), which had revoked EP 3 498 115 at the request of NJOY Netherlands B.V.
Read the analysisBy order of 9 January 2026 (UPC_CoA_237/2025), the Court of Appeal permitted Juul Labs to withdraw its appeal against the decision of the Paris Central Division of 17 January 2025 (UPC_CFI_316/2023), which had revoked EP 3 430 921 for eight states at…
Read the analysisBy order of 9 January 2026 (UPC_CoA_328/2025), the Court of Appeal permitted Juul Labs to withdraw its appeal against the decision of the Paris Central Division of 7 February 2025 (UPC_CFI_314/2023), which had revoked EP 3 504 990 for eight states at…
Read the analysisThe Court of Appeal allows VMR Products LLC to withdraw its appeal against the decision of the Paris Central Division of 22 January 2025 (UPC_CFI_310/2023), which had partially revoked EP 3 613 453 at the request of NJOY Netherlands B.V., the patent…
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 analysisThe Court of Appeal dismisses VMR Products LLC’s appeal against the decision of the Paris Central Division of 27 November 2024 (UPC_CFI_308/2023), which had revoked in its entirety, at the request of NJOY Netherlands B.V., EP 3 456 214 for a vaporizer.
Read the analysisBy order of 29 December 2025 (UPC_CoA_936/2025), the President of the Court of Appeal, sitting as standing judge in a case of extreme urgency under Rule 223.4 RoP, dismissed five Amazon companies' request for suspensive effect against the Mannheim Local Division's order…
Read the analysisThe standing judge of the Court of Appeal refuses Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy leave to appeal the decision of 6 November 2025 in which the Paris Central Division (UPC_CFI_724/2025) set at EUR 350,000 the costs owed to Microsoft Corporation…
Read the analysisThe Court of Appeal allows Sumi Agro Limited and Sumi Agro Europe Limited to withdraw their application for rehearing (Rule 245 RoP) of an order of the Court of Appeal of 3 March 2025, issued in proceedings UPC_CoA_523/2024 against Syngenta Limited (EP…
Read the analysisIn a decision of 23 December 2025 (UPC_CoA_691/2025), the Court of Appeal, on the parties' joint request, permitted Lindal Dispenser to withdraw its appeal against the Paris Central Division decision of 29 May 2025 dismissing its revocation action against Rocep-Lusol Holdings (UPC_CFI_202/2024).
Read the analysisThe judge-rapporteur of the Court of Appeal, sitting alone, grants Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP access to Insulet Corporation’s Statement of Appeal and to a redacted version of EOFLow Co., Ltd.’s Statement of Response in appeal UPC_CoA_768/2024 (EP 4 201 327), decided…
Read the analysisIn an order of 19 December 2025, made in the joined appeals UPC_CoA_622/2025 and UPC_CoA_623/2025, the Court of Appeal ordered Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump, an appellant based in China, to provide security of EUR 75,000 per appeal in favour of Grundfos…
Read the analysisThe Court of Appeal disposes, under Rule 360 RoP, of the procedural appeal brought by Viatris Santé against the order of the Paris Local Division of 29 October 2025 (UPC_CFI_697/2025), which had disregarded late-filed exhibits in provisional measures proceedings brought by Merz…
Read the analysisThe judge-rapporteur of the Court of Appeal, sitting alone, rejects the request of Docket Navigator, which runs a patent litigation tracking platform, for access to the written pleadings and evidence in appeal UPC_CoA_523/2024 between Sumi Agro Limited and Sumi Agro Europe Limited…
Read the analysisThe Court of Appeal orders, without hearing TP-Link, that Huawei’s appeals have suspensive effect for the duration of the proceedings and that TP-Link is not to have access to the pleadings covered by the order of the Munich Local Division of 28…
Read the analysisIn a decision of 9 December 2025 (UPC_CoA_12/2025, APL_366/2025), the Court of Appeal set aside the order that Bhagat Textile Engineers pay Oerlikon Textile EUR 15,000 in interim damages for reputational harm, and otherwise dismissed the appeal.
Read the analysisIn an order of 2 December 2025 (UPC_CoA_894/2025), the judge-rapporteur of the Court of Appeal refused Windhager Handelsgesellschaft's application for suspensive effect of its appeal against the Mannheim Local Division decision of 12 September 2025, which had largely upheld bellissa HAAS's infringement…
Read the analysisThe Court of Appeal upholds the order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 18 August 2025, which had changed the language of the infringement proceedings brought by Innovative Sonic Corporation against OPPO and eight other companies before the…
Read the analysisThe Court of Appeal dismisses Yealink’s cross-appeal (UPC_CoA_376/2025), which challenged the territorial competence of the Brussels Local Division, and, in the same order, the main appeal of Barco N.V.
Read the analysisIn an order of 27 November 2025 (UPC_CoA_904/2025 and UPC_CoA_905/2025), the Court of Appeal rejected Vivo's request to stay the proceedings brought by Sun Patent Trust before the Paris Local Division, or alternatively to extend the deadline for the statement of defence,…
Read the analysisBy decision of 27 November 2025, the Court of Appeal permits STRABAG to withdraw its appeal against the Vienna Local Division’s decision of 15 January 2025 (EP 2 643 717), following a settlement with SWARCO, and declares proceedings UPC_CoA_70/2025 closed.
Read the analysisBy decision of 25 November 2025, given in the joined appeals UPC_CoA_528/2024 and UPC_CoA_529/2024, the Court of Appeal set aside the decisions of the Munich Central Division of 16 July 2024, which had revoked Amgen’s EP 3 666 797 (antibodies against PCSK9)…
Read the analysisIn its decision of 25 November 2025, the Court of Appeal rules on all the appeals between the Meril companies and Edwards Lifesciences concerning EP 3 646 825 (transcatheter prosthetic heart valve with a frame of hexagonal cells).
Read the analysisBy order of 24 November 2025, the standing judge of the Court of Appeal rejects Suinno’s application for suspensive effect, made together with its application for leave to appeal the Paris Central Division’s decision of 6 November 2025 fixing the costs payable…
Read the analysisBy an order of 7 November 2025 (UPC_CoA_579/2025), the Court of Appeal set aside the order of the Hamburg Local Division of 16 June 2025, rectified on 11 August 2025, which had prohibited OTEC Präzisionsfinish from manufacturing and marketing an electrolytic medium…
Read the analysisBy an order of 7 November 2025 (UPC_CoA_900/2025), the judge-rapporteur of the Court of Appeal rejected the application for suspensive effect filed by Lepu Medical (Europe) and Lepu Medical Technology (Beijing) against the Hamburg Local Division's order of 21 October 2025 granting…
Read the analysisBy an order of 6 November 2025 (UPC_CoA_897/2025), the Court of Appeal rejected Black Sheep Retail Products' application for suspensive effect against the information order made by the Hague Local Division in its decision of 10 October 2025, which had held HL…
Read the analysisBy an order of 31 October 2025, given in joined appeals UPC_CoA_755/2025 and UPC_CoA_757/2025, the Court of Appeal rejected the request by Vivo Mobile Communication, Vivo Tech and Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia to stay the infringement actions brought by Sun Patent Trust…
Read the analysisBy order of 30 October 2025 (UPC_CoA_8/2025, proceedings in Italian, EP 2 145 848), the Court of Appeal ruled on the application for security for costs brought by Oerlikon Textile, the respondent, against Bhagat Textile Engineers, the appellant found to infringe by…
Read the analysisThe Court of Appeal sets aside the order of the Mannheim Local Division requiring Kodak to pay EUR 100,000 for failing to comply with the information, destruction, recall and removal orders in the decision on the merits of 2 April 2025 (EP…
Read the analysisThe pleas that the Court’s jurisdictional framework is incompatible with EU law, and that the absence of a London section of the Central Division infringes the right to a tribunal established by law, are rejected.
Read the analysisAn offer within the meaning of Article 25(a) UPCA is to be interpreted autonomously and in economic terms: it is sufficient that the presentation enables third parties to make a contractual proposal, without contractual terms or a price being specified.
Read the analysisIn a decision of 2 October 2025, given in German in the joined appeals UPC_CoA_764/2024 and UPC_CoA_774/2024, the Court of Appeal sets aside in its entirety the decision of the Düsseldorf Local Division of 10 October 2024.
Read the analysisBy order of 1 October 2025 (UPC_CoA_681/2025), the Court of Appeal rejects Bruker’s appeal against the order of the Munich Local Division of 16 July 2025 which, following a settlement and the withdrawal of the proceedings, had reimbursed only 60% of the…
Read the analysisIn an order of 24 September 2025, the judge-rapporteur of the Court of Appeal extended by three working days, to 1 October 2025, the time limit for Industriebeteiligungs- und Beratungs and three other companies to file their statement of grounds of appeal…
Read the analysisBy order of 23 September 2025 in the joined appeals UPC_CoA_631/2025 and UPC_CoA_632/2025, the Court of Appeal admits Apple as an intervener in support of Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson.
Read the analysisBy order of 23 September 2025 in the joined appeals UPC_CoA_755/2025 and UPC_CoA_757/2025, the Court of Appeal admits Apple as an intervener in support of SUN PATENT Trust, to the extent that Apple’s confidential information is concerned.
Read the analysisBy an order of 16 September 2025 (UPC_CoA_796/2025), the standing judge of the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal of Bodycap, CNRS and Université de Rennes against the order of the Milan Central Division of 6 August 2025, which had upheld the…
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 an order of 25 August 2025 (UPC_CoA_758/2025, App_34971/2025), the Court of Appeal rejected Sun Patent Trust's application for suspensive effect against the Paris Local Division's order of 31 July 2025 which, in its infringement action against the Vivo companies on EP…
Read the analysisBy an order of 25 August 2025 (UPC_CoA_759/2025), the Court of Appeal rejected Sun Patent Trust's application for suspensive effect against the Paris Local Division's order of 31 July 2025 which, in its infringement action against Vivo (EP 3 852 468), gave…
Read the analysisIn an order of 21 August 2025, issued in appeal proceedings UPC_CoA_764/2024 and UPC_CoA_774/2024 between Seoul Viosys and expert klein and expert e-Commerce (EP 3 926 698), the Court of Appeal disregarded a brief lodged by Seoul Viosys after the oral hearing…
Read the analysisBy order of 21 August 2025 (UPC_CoA_363/2025), the Court of Appeal dismisses Microsoft’s application under Rule 353 RoP to rectify its decision by default of 12 July 2025 against Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing, given for failure to provide the security…
Read the analysisBy order of 21 August 2025, the judge-rapporteur of the Court of Appeal dismisses, without examining their substance, the confidentiality requests (Rule 262A RoP) filed by Kodak with its statements of grounds of appeal (UPC_CoA_312/2025 and UPC_CoA_333/2025) against the decisions of the…
Read the analysisBy order of 21 August 2025, the judge-rapporteur of the Court of Appeal refuses Yealink’s request for simultaneous interpretation from English into Mandarin Chinese at the hearing of 22 September 2025 in the appeal and cross-appeal (UPC_CoA_317/2025 and UPC_CoA_376/2025) against the provisional…
Read the analysisBy an order of 21 August 2025 (UPC_CoA_23/2025, App_33358/2025), the Court of Appeal (Judges Grabinski, presiding, Gougé, rapporteur, and Blok) allowed the withdrawal of the application to intervene lodged by LIFE 365 and LIFE 365 Italy in support of LAMA France in…
Read the analysisIn an order of 20 August 2025 (UPC_CoA_380/2025), a single judge of the Court of Appeal refused expert e-Commerce and expert klein leave to appeal against the Düsseldorf Local Division’s decision holding their application for a cost decision against Seoul Viosys to…
Read the analysisBy order of 15 August 2025 (UPC_CoA_737/2025), Judge Rombach, standing judge of the Court of Appeal, rejected RiVOLUTiON's application for suspensive effect against the provisional measures ordered by the Munich Local Division on 6 August 2025 in favour of Cilag GmbH International…
Read the analysisBy order of 15 August 2025 (UPC_CoA_328/2024), Judge Simonsson, judge rapporteur at the Court of Appeal, ordered the release and full transfer to Kinexon Sports' bank account of the EUR 25,000 deposited by Ballinno on 30 August 2024 as security for the…
Read the analysisIn Barco’s appeal against the order of the Brussels Local Division of 21 March 2025, which had dismissed its application for provisional measures against Yealink (EP 3 732 827) for lack of urgency, the Court of Appeal, by order of 14 August…
Read the analysisBy order of 12 August 2025 (UPC_CoA_360/2025, App_33761/2025), Judge Blok, judge rapporteur at the Court of Appeal, extended to 3 October 2025 the time limit for Cisco Systems to respond to Lionra Technologies' appeal and to lodge a cross-appeal, in the dispute…
Read the analysisBy an order of 1 August 2025 (UPC_CoA_70/2025), the UPC Court of Appeal ruled on the confidentiality requests filed by STRABAG Infrastructure & Safety Solutions and by the intervener Chainzone Technology (Foshan) in the appeal against the Vienna Local Division's decision of…
Read the analysisBy order of 24 July 2025 (UPC_CoA_300/2025), the President of the Court of Appeal, Judge Grabinski, rejected the petition of a European patent attorney, whose name is redacted, against the Registrar's decision of 18 March 2025 refusing his entry on the list…
Read the analysisBy decision of 24 July 2025 (UPC_CoA_285/2025), the Court of Appeal (Presiding Judge Grabinski, Judge Gougé as judge-rapporteur, and Judge Germano) permitted Hanshow Germany to withdraw its appeal, limited to costs, against the Paris Central Division's decision of 27 January 2025.
Read the analysisBy an order of 24 July 2025 (UPC_CoA_521/2025), the President of the Court of Appeal rejected a petition by a European patent attorney, whose name is redacted, against the Registrar's decision of 12 May 2025 refusing his entry on the list of…
Read the analysisBy order of 24 July 2025 (UPC_CoA_579/2025), Judge Gougé, judge-rapporteur at the Court of Appeal, granted OTEC Präzisionsfinish two weeks to reply to a new experiment filed by STEROS GPA Innovative with its statement of response, in the appeal against the provisional…
Read the analysis