Appeals
Decisions of the Unified Patent Court recorded under "Appeals" in UPC Litigation Watch, the case law database maintained by Dhenne Avocats.
Find a decision in three steps
- 1. SearchEnter a party name, case number or keyword.
- 2. RefineUse the filters to refine your search, then select Filter.
- 3. ReadOpen a title. The “Decision with commentary” badge identifies a case note by the firm.
Scope, method and reading key
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.
Advanced search
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.
Favourites are kept in this browser only.
Compare two parties or two issues
Coverage actually indexed: 2524 records out of 2524, full text available for 2349 decisions (official PDFs extracted), 0 pending, 32 requiring optical recognition, 126 without a PDF. A search within decision text covers only extracted documents and is not exhaustive. Scope: Dhenne Avocats corpus, counts are neither market shares nor success rates.
523 decisions recorded
Vivo Mobile Communication v Sun Patent Trust (CoA, 26 January 2026)
Read the French analysisMerz Pharmaceuticals v Viatris Santé (CoA, 26 January 2026)
In 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 analysisVALEO SYSTEMES D’ESSUYAGE v ROBERT BOSCH FRANCE (CoA, 21 January 2026)
Read the French analysisApplicant *** v Amycel (CoA, 16 January 2026)
By 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 analysisJuul Labs International v NJOY Netherlands (CoA, UPC_CoA_5/2025, 9 January 2026)
The 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 analysisJuul Labs International v NJOY Netherlands (CoA, UPC_CoA_237/2025, 9 January 2026)
By 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 analysisJuul Labs International v NJOY Netherlands (CoA, UPC_CoA_328/2025, 9 January 2026)
By 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 analysisVMR Products v NJOY Netherlands (CoA, 9 January 2026)
The 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 analysisAngelalign Technology v Align Technology (CoA, 6 January 2026)
By 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 analysisVMR Products v NJOY Netherlands (CoA, 29 December 2025)
The 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 analysisAmazon.com v InterDigital VC Holdings (CoA, 29 December 2025)
By 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 analysisSuinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing v Microsoft (CoA, 24 December 2025)
The 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 analysisSumi Agro v Syngenta (CoA, 24 December 2025)
The 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 analysisLindal Dispenser v Rocep-Lusol (CoA, 23 December 2025)
In 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 analysisHerbert Smith Freehills Kramer (applicant) in Insulet v EOFLow (CoA, 22 December 2025)
The 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 analysisUERAN v Xiaomi (CoA, UPC_CoA_903/2025, 19 December 2025)
Open the entryHefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump v Grundfos (CoA, 19 December 2025)
In 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 analysisViatris Santé v Merz Pharmaceuticals (CoA, 19 December 2025)
The 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 analysisDocket Navigator (applicant) in Sumi Agro v Syngenta (CoA, 19 December 2025)
The 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 analysisUERAN v Xiaomi (CoA, UPC_CoA_902/2025, 19 December 2025)
Open the entryHuawei v TP-Link Systems (CoA, 17 December 2025)
The 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 analysisBhagat Textile Engineers v Oerlikon Textile (CoA, 9 December 2025)
In 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 analysisWindhager Handelsgesellschaft v bellissa HAAS (CoA, 2 December 2025)
In 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 analysisInnovative Sonic v Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications (CoA, 1 December 2025)
The 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 analysisBarco v Yealink (Xiamen) Network (CoA, 28 November 2025)
Read the French analysisYealink (Xiamen) Network v Barco (CoA, 28 November 2025)
The 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 analysisSTRABAG Infrastructure & Safet v SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignals (CoA, 27 November 2025)
Read the French analysisVivo Mobile Communication v Sun Patent Trust (CoA, 27 November 2025)
In 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 analysisChainzone Technology (Foshan) v SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme (CoA, 27 November 2025)
By 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 analysisAmgen v Regeneron Pharmaceuticals (CoA, 25 November 2025)
Read the French analysisAmgen v Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland (CoA, 25 November 2025)
By 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 analysisMeril Italy v Edwards Lifesciences (CoA, 25 November 2025)
In 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 analysisSuinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing v Microsoft (CoA, 24 November 2025)
By 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 analysisOTEC Präzisionsfinish v STEROS GPA Innovative (CoA, 7 November 2025)
By 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 analysisLepu Medical (Europe) Cooperat v Occlutech (CoA, 7 November 2025)
By 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 analysisBlack Sheep Retail Products v HL Display (CoA, 6 November 2025)
By 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 analysisSeoul Viosys v expert e-Commerce (CoA, UPC_CoA_762/2024, 5 November 2025)
Read the French analysisSeoul Viosys v expert e-Commerce (CoA, UPC_CoA_773/2024, 5 November 2025)
Read the French analysisSun Patent Trust v Vivo Mobile Communication (CoA, UPC_CoA_755/2025, 31 October 2025)
By 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 analysisSun Patent Trust v Vivo Mobile Communication (CoA, UPC_CoA_757/2025, 31 October 2025)
Read the French analysisOerlikon Textile v Bhagat Textile Engineers (CoA, 30 October 2025)
By 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 analysisKodak v Fujifilm (CoA, 14 October 2025)
The 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 analysisRoku International v Sun Patent Trust (CoA, 6 October 2025)
The 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 analysisRoku International v Dolby International (CoA, 6 October 2025)
Read the French analysisRoku v Sun Patent Trust (CoA, 6 October 2025)
Read the French analysisBelkin v Koninklijke Philips (CoA, UPC_CoA_19/2025, 3 October 2025)
An 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 analysisKoninklijke Philips v Belkin (CoA, 3 October 2025)
Read the French analysisBelkin v Koninklijke Philips (CoA, UPC_CoA_534/2024, 3 October 2025)
Read the French analysisexpert klein v Seoul Viosys (CoA, 2 October 2025)
In 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 analysisExpert e-Commerce v Seoul Viosys (CoA, 2 October 2025)
Read the French analysisBruker Spatial Biology v 10x Genomics (CoA, 1 October 2025)
By 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 analysisIndustriebeteiligungs- und Beratungs v Washtower IP (CoA, 24 September 2025)
In 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 analysisTelefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v ASUSTeK Computer (CoA, 23 September 2025)
By 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 analysisSUN PATENT Trust v Vivo Mobile Communication (CoA, 23 September 2025)
By 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 analysisAPPLE (intervener) in Telefon v ASUSTEK Computer (CoA, 23 September 2025)
Read the French analysisAPPLE (intervener) in Sun Pat v Vivo Mobile Communication (CoA, 23 September 2025)
Read the French analysisBodycap v European Patent Office (EPO) (CoA, 16 September 2025)
By 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 analysisCeraCon v Sunstar Engineering (CoA, 2 September 2025)
By 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 analysisCentripetal v Keysight Technologies (CoA, 1 September 2025)
By 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 analysisSun Patent Trust v Vivo Mobile Communication (CoA, 25 August 2025)
By 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 analysisVivo Tech v Sun Patent Trust (CoA, 25 August 2025)
By 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 analysisSeoul Viosys v expert klein (CoA, 21 August 2025)
In 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 analysisMicrosoft v Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing (CoA, 21 August 2025)
By 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 analysisKodak v Fujifilm (CoA, 21 August 2025)
By 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 analysisBarco v Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology (CoA, 21 August 2025)
By 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 analysisLIFE 365 v Hewlett-Packard Development (CoA, 21 August 2025)
By 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 analysisexpert klein v Seoul Viosys (CoA, 20 August 2025)
In 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 analysisSun Patent Trust v Vivo Mobile Communication (CoA, 15 August 2025)
Read the French analysisRiVOLUTiON v Cilag International (CoA, 15 August 2025)
By 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 analysisVivo Tech v Sun Patent Trust (CoA, 15 August 2025)
Read the French analysisBallinno v Kinexon Sports & Media (CoA, 15 August 2025)
By 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 analysisBarco v Yealink (CoA, 14 August 2025)
In 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 analysisBoehringer Ingelheim International v Zentiva Portugal (CoA, 13 August 2025)
Read the French analysisLionra Technologies v Cisco Systems (CoA, 12 August 2025)
By 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 analysisSTRABAG Infrastructure & Safety Solutions v SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme (CoA, 1 August 2025)
By 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 analysisApplicant *** (CoA, UPC_CoA_300/2025, 24 July 2025)
By 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 analysisHanshow Germany v VusionGroup (CoA, 24 July 2025)
By 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 analysisApplicant *** (CoA, UPC_CoA_521/2025, 24 July 2025)
By 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 analysisOTEC Präzisionsfinish v STEROS GPA Innovative (CoA, 24 July 2025)
By 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 analysisApplicant *** (CoA, UPC_CoA_347/2025, 24 July 2025)
By an order of 24 July 2025 (UPC_CoA_347/2025), the President of the Court of Appeal rejected as unfounded a petition by an applicant, whose name is redacted, against the Registrar's decision of 20 March 2025 refusing his entry on the list of…
Read the analysisHewlett-Packard Development Company v LAMA France (CoA, 24 July 2025)
By decision of 24 July 2025 (UPC_CoA_24/2025 and UPC_CoA_23/2025), the Court of Appeal (Presiding Judge Grabinski, Judge Gougé as judge-rapporteur, and Judge Germano) granted the reciprocal withdrawals of Hewlett-Packard Development Company and LAMA France, which had each appealed the Paris Local Division's…
Read the analysisApplicant *** (CoA, UPC_CoA_614/2025, 24 July 2025)
By an order of 24 July 2025 (UPC_CoA_614/2025), 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 2 June 2025 refusing his entry on the list of…
Read the analysisVisibly v Easee (CoA, 23 July 2025)
By order of 23 July 2025 (UPC_CoA_526/2025), the Court of Appeal (Presiding Judge Kalden, Judge Rombach as judge-rapporteur, and Judge Simonsson) permitted Visibly, with Easee's consent, to withdraw its appeal against the Hamburg Local Division's order of 30 May 2025 on security…
Read the analysisKoninklijke Philips v Belkin (CoA, 22 July 2025)
By order of 22 July 2025 (UPC_CoA_845/2024), the Court of Appeal allowed Koninklijke Philips to withdraw the application for a cost decision against Belkin that it had lodged with the Court of Appeal by mistake on 2 July 2025, and declared the…
Read the analysisMAGUIN v TIRU (CoA, 15 July 2025)
By order of 15 July 2025 (UPC_CoA_327/2025, APL_16749/2025), the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal brought by MAGUIN, the manufacturer of an incineration kiln, against the Paris Local Division's order of 24 March 2025 refusing to set aside evidence preservation and inspection…
Read the analysisVALINEA ENERGIE v TIRU (CoA, 15 July 2025)
By order of 15 July 2025 (PC-CoA-002/2025), the Court of Appeal dismissed VALINEA Energie's appeal against the Paris Local Division's order of 24 March 2025 refusing to set aside evidence preservation and inspection measures granted to TIRU without hearing the defendant, on…
Read the analysisSuinno Mobile & AI Licensing v Microsoft (CoA, 12 July 2025)
Open the entryMicrosoft v Suinno Mobile & AI Licensing (CoA, 12 July 2025)
Open the entryOTEC Präzisionsfinish v Steros GPA Innovative (CoA, 10 July 2025)
By order of 10 July 2025 (UPC_CoA_581/2025, App_30685/2025), the judge rapporteur Gougé (Court of Appeal) rejected OTEC Präzisionsfinish's application for suspensive effect against the Hamburg Local Division's order of 16 June 2025, which had provisionally restrained it, in 18 states, from infringing…
Read the analysisChint New Energy Technology v JingAo Solar (CoA, 9 July 2025)
By order of 9 July 2025 (UPC_CoA_431/2025, APL_23095/2025), the Court of Appeal (Judges Grabinski, Blok and Gougé) reversed the Hamburg Local Division's refusal and ordered JingAo Solar, the Chinese claimant in the infringement action under EP 4 092 759, to provide the…
Read the analysisChint New Energy v JingAo Solar (CoA, 9 July 2025)
By order of 9 July 2025 (UPC_CoA_430/2025, APL_23093/2025), the Court of Appeal (Judges Grabinski, Blok and Gougé) held inadmissible Chint New Energy Technology's appeal against the Munich Local Division judge rapporteur's order of 5 May 2025 requiring it to provide security for…
Read the analysisTiroler Rohre v SSAB Swedish Steel (CoA, 3 July 2025)
By order of 3 July 2025, the standing judge of the Court of Appeal rejects Tiroler Rohre’s appeal against the Munich Local Division judge-rapporteur’s order of 10 February 2025, which had ordered it to reimburse EUR 84,033.76 in costs to SSAB Swedish…
Read the analysisAdvanced Bionics v MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte (CoA, 3 July 2025)
By decision of 3 July 2025 (UPC_CoA_175/2025 to UPC_CoA_178/2025), the Court of Appeal (Judges Grabinski, Blok and Gougé) permitted Advanced Bionics, with MED-EL's agreement, to withdraw its revocation action and its revocation counterclaim against EP 4 074 373, declared the proceedings closed…
Read the analysisAppellant*** v ORTHOAPNEA (CoA, 3 July 2025)
By decision of 3 July 2025, given in Dutch, the Court of Appeal (Grabinski, Blok, Gougé) allowed the withdrawal of the appeal against the Brussels Local Division's decision of 17 January 2025, which had dismissed the infringement actions on EP 2 331…
Read the analysisTandem Diabetes Care Europe v Roche Diabetes Care (CoA, 3 July 2025)
By order of 3 July 2025, the Court of Appeal’s judge-rapporteur orders that 60% of the appeal court fees be reimbursed to Tandem Diabetes (UPC_CoA_120/2025). The appeal was directed at the Paris Central Division’s decision of 18 December 2024 dismissing the revocation…
Read the analysisNetwork System v Qualcomm (CoA, 3 July 2025)
By order of 3 July 2025, the Court of Appeal rejects both Network System Technologies’ (NST) appeal and Qualcomm’s cross-appeal against the Munich Local Division’s order of 26 February 2025, given in three infringement actions concerning three patents (appeals UPC_CoA_221/2025 to 223/2025…
Read the analysisAdvanced Bionics (CoA, 3 July 2025)
Read the French analysisEasee v Visibly (CoA, 1 July 2025)
By order of 1 July 2025, the Court of Appeal (Kalden, Rombach, Simonsson) stayed the cross-appeals of Easee and Visibly (UPC_CoA_542/2025 and UPC_CoA_526/2025) against the Hamburg Local Division's order of 30 May 2025, which had required Easee to provide EUR 75,000 security…
Read the analysisEasee v Visibly (CoA, 26 June 2025)
By order of 26 June 2025, the Court of Appeal (Kalden, Rombach, Simonsson) granted suspensive effect to the appeal of Easee's managing director against the Hamburg Local Division's order of 30 May 2025 requiring EUR 75,000 security for costs in respect of…
Read the analysis