JUVE Patent brings you the latest news on the development of the UPC, as well as an overview of our previous coverage on the most important stages in the creation of the first European civil court.
February 2025
UPC case load reaches 700 mark
The number of cases at the UPC has now reached 700. On 1 January the UPC reported 635 cases, thus they have increased by 65 in recent weeks. Of the current 700 proceedings, 251 are infringement actions and 69 are applications for provisional measures. Most infringement actions are still filed at the local divisions in Germany: Munich has 82 cases, Düsseldorf 55, and Mannheim 34. Paris accounts for 14 infringement actions, followed by Milan with 13. Further infringement actions have been filed in Copenhagen (three cases), Brussels (two), and Vienna (two). The Helsinki, Lisbon, Paris and Milan central divisions each have one case. Furthermore, 259 counterclaims for revocation have been filed at the local and regional divisions. However, the UPC points out that this figure gives an inflated impression since up to a few months ago, each defendant in an infringement case needed to file an individual claim for revocation. Thus, the 259 counterclaims for revocation come from 140 individual infringement actions. Regarding revocation actions, most have been filed at Paris central division (40 cases), followed by Munich central division (eight) and Milan central division (seven).
In the dispute over avalanche search and rescue devices, Ortovox has now obtained a permanent injunction against Mammut from the Düsseldorf local division. The panel under presiding judge Ronny Thomas permanently enjoined the Swiss outdoor equipment supplier from selling its Barryvox devices in Austria and Germany because they infringe Ortovox's EP 3 466 498 (case ID: UPC_CFI_16/2024). The court rejected Mammut's counterclaim for revocation. The judgment was only recently published on the UPC website despite the division having published it mid-January. Mammut can appeal. The previous PI proceedings attracted much attention when the Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance PI against against Mammut. It was the first PI to survive both UPC instances. Kather Augenstein partner Miriam Kiefer and patent attorney Michael Siebel from IP firm Hofstetter Schurack & Partner represented Ortovox in the PI proceedings. Mammut has also relied on the same team from Bird & Bird under lead partner Oliver Jüngst and Basel-based patent attorney Fabian Leimgruber from ThomannFischer in all proceedings to date.
Jule Schumacher is now the third judge at the Düsseldorf local division. Schumacher is currently a judge at Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court. Similarly to the Mannheim local division, the Düsseldorf local division will decide cases in two different compositions: Ronny Thomas, as presiding judge, will handle proceedings together with either Bérénice Thom or Schumacher. Unlike the Munich division, which has the most cases, Mannheim and Düsseldorf will not have two separate panels. According to sources, the UPC will likely appoint another UPC judge in addition to Schumacher.
Swarco Futurit and Nomos land win in first Vienna infringement ruling
Vienna-based Strabag Infrastructure & Safety Solutions GmbH may no longer sell a specific series of LED scoreboards manufactured by Chainzone Technology (Foshan) in the UPC countries of Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Slovenia, and Sweden. This was the ruling of the Vienna local division (case ID: UPC_CFI_33/2024). In its first decision in main proceedings, the court ruled that the Chinese supplier's products infringe EP 2 643 717 protecting a colour-mixing collection optic. The panel comprised Andras Kupecz and Mojca Mlakar and presiding judge Walter Schober. Strabag and co-litigant Chainzone did not countersue for revocation. The court thus did not examine the patent's validity. Strabag can appeal the judgment. Alexander Koller from Viennese law firm Nomos filed the action on behalf of Swarco Futurit. Patent attorneys from Viennese law firm Barger Piso & Partner assisted. Strabag retained patent attorney Rainer Beetz from Austrian law firm Sonn Patentanwälte. Chainzone retained patent attorney Bernhard Henhapel from Kliment & Henhapel as well as lawyer Dominik Göbel from Gassauer-Fleissner & Partner.
The two automotive suppliers Valeo and Magna have settled their dispute over gearbox motor generators. This is apparent from orders issued by the UPC's local division Düsseldorf and the Court of Appeal in Luxembourg. Both companies had requested the withdrawal of lawsuits at the end of December. In the billion-euro dispute over transmission technology, which is used primarily in various BMW models, Valeo had filed two PI motions and four infringement actions with the Düsseldorf local division. Magna had responded with counterclaims for revocation. There were also actions before the Regional Courts of Düsseldorf and Munich, as well as entitlement actions by Magna in France. The background to this was a failed collaboration between the two suppliers. In October, the Düsseldorf local division then issued two PI orders against Magna prohibiting the use of the infringing technology in Germany and France. Magna may no longer use its product for future car models. However, the court exempted the current BMW models because it would have been disproportionately costly and time-consuming to modify them. Valeo relied on a Bird & Bird team led by Felix Rödiger in the dispute. Nicolas Cardon, patent attorney at Valeo, took over the technical parts. Magna retained Hoyng ROKH Monegier partners Sabine Agé and Klaus Haft, Hengeler Mueller partner Wolfgang Kellenter and patent attorney Jan Ackermann from Cohausz & Florack.
Huawei and Netgear, as well as Abbott and Dexcom, have surprisingly ended their global patent battles that were also fought intensely at the UPC. The former are ending their dispute after the Munich local division issued an injunction against Netgear in December for using a Huawei wifi-6 patent. The Chinese company had also obtained an AASI against Netgear at the UPC and the Regional Court in Munich. The case also included US litigation. Huawei is a licensor in the Sisvel Wi-Fi 6 pool. According to Sisvel, Netgear has accepted a pool licence. Sisvel did not disclose details of the settlement. Shortly before Christmas, Abbott and Dexcom had announced the end of their dispute over glucose-monitoring devices. The battle was one of the most extensive and intense in recent years. Besides the UPC, Dexcom and Abbott were fighting before the courts in Germany, Spain, the UK, the EPO and the US. At the UPC, Dexcom had claimed infringement of five of its patents, Abbott had claimed infringement of four patents. After two defeats at the UPC, the Paris local division invalidated a third patent belonging to Dexcom in December 2024. On December 23, both companies then announced the conclusion of a licence agreement. It includes a provision that the parties will not litigate with each other for the next ten years. There are no financial payments associated with the settlement from either Abbott or Dexcom.
LD Mannheim grants its first PI in Pohl-Boskamp against Aldi and Pharma-aktiva
Aldi and Hofer are no longer allowed to sell their anti-lice sprays Vitalis Läusespray and ACTIV MED Läusespray in Germany and Austria respectively. This was ordered by the local division Mannheim under presiding judge Peter Tochtermann last week as both products violate EP 1 993 363 (case ID: UPC_CFI_541/2024) The two products are manufactured by Pharma-aktiva which the court has also prohibited for Germany. The order is immediate and enforceable. However, the plaintiff G. Pohl-Boskamp GmbH & Co KG must now file a main action with the UPC within a period of 31 calendar days or 20 working days, otherwise the order will lose its effectiveness. G. Pohl-Boskamp markets the anti-lice spray NYDA. The PI action was filed by the company with a Simmons & Simmons team led by Sebastian Horlemann and Thomas Gniadek. Pharma-aktiva was defended by Matthias Ringer of the Munich IP law firm Lorenz Seidler Gossel. Aldi and Hofer relied on patent attorney Alexander von Foullon from the law firm Von Rohr, which is based in the German Ruhr area. The defendants can appeal the judgement.
ICPillar and ARM Group settle global dispute including UPC cases
According to UPC documents, ICPillar and Arm have settled their global dispute over semiconductor patents. Both companies had applied to the Paris local division to withdraw a pending UPC infringement case and the corresponding counterclaim for revocation. The local division around presiding judge Camille Lignieres agreed. The dispute was one of the first concerning semiconductors to reach the UPC. In December 2023, US company ICPillar filed an infringement claim against twelve different companies in the ARM group with the Paris local division. EP 3 000 239 protects a system and method for universal control of electronic devices, which is used to produce semiconductors. ARM developed the so-called ARM architecture, which is built under licence and used in many mobile devices. The Paris local division heard the case in January. Lionel Martin, partner at August Debouzy, filed the UPC lawsuit on behalf of ICPillar. A Germany-based team from Mayer Brown is representing the defendants. Mayer Brown is supported by a UK-German patent attorney team from Haseltine Lake Kempner.
AIM Sport's infringement action at the UPC can go ahead
The UPC Court of Appeal finds the withdrawal of the opt-out of AIM Sport's EP 3 295 663 is admissible. The November ruling provides clarity on how Article 83 of the UPC Agreement is to be interpreted (case ID: UPC_CoA_489/2023 and UPC_CoA_500/2023). Initially, AIM Sport had opted EP 663 out of the UPC. It then decided to withdraw the opt-out and file a PI and infringement case against competitor Supponor at the local division Helsinki. In September 2023, the Helsinki judges rejected both claims in the PI proceedings. With reference to German national proceedings, which began before the UPC’s launch, the Helsinki judges ruled AIM Sport should not have been able to withdraw the opt-out. The Court of Appeal has now ruled the withdrawal of the opt-out by AIM Sport was effective. A national action only blocks an opt-in of a European patent if the action was initiated during the transitional period. It does not block an opt-in if, as in the dispute between AIM Sport and Supponor, the action was filed prior and then continues after the UPC launched. Now the local division Helsinki must hear the case again and decide whether Supponor's AI-based Air technology für sport stadium advertising infringes EP 663. The decision will have far-reaching consequences for opt-ins of European patents. AIM Sport retained Noerr and Powell Gilbert for national cases in Germany and the UK plus the UPC, with Düsseldorf IP firm Rospatt and Finnish-Swedish law firm Roschier also present in the UPC case. Supponor relied on a German Hogan Lovells team and a Finnish team from full-service law firm Hannes Snellman for the UPC. Gleiss Lutz is also present in the UPC case and national cases.
LD The Hague imposes sales ban against Bioo lighting products
Arkyne Technologies is no longer allowed to sell its Bioo Panel, Bioo Ed or Bioo Bench products in Benelux, France, Germany and Italy. The local division The Hague ruled last Friday. Arkyne sells it’s lighting products under the Bioo brand. UPC judges Edger Brinkman, Margot Kokke, Samuel Granata as well as technically qualified judge Simon Walker heard the case on 30 September. Now, they have ruled that the Bioo products infringe Plant-e’s EP 2 137 782 B1, which protects a device and method for converting light energy into electrical energy. Arkyne had filed a counterclaim for revocation against EP 782 which the judges rejected (case ID: UPC_CFI_239/2023). The decision is immediately enforceable without any security payment needed. Arkyne can appeal the ruling to the Court of Appeal. It is the first infringement ruling of the local division. Both companies' technologies utilise an unusual technique for extracting energy from plants. A mixed team from the Dutch and German offices of Simmons & Simmons litigated the case for the plaintiff. Amsterdam-based partner Oscar Lamme and patent attorney Johan Renes took the lead. Arkyne relied on a team led by lawyer Alfred Meijboom, who is of counsel at Dutch full-service firm Kennedy Van der Laan. The team also comprises Barcelona-based law firm DWF as well as patent attorneys Patrick Busch and Wouter Mooij from Dutch firm De Vries & Metman.
LD Milan grants Pirelli two ex-parte seizure orders
In early November the UPC Milan local division handed down two ex-parte seizure orders in Italy. The orders are not yet published on the UPC website. According to JUVE Patent sources, both orders concerned two applications for provisional measures filed by Pirelli on 31 October. The tyre manufacturer alleged four defendants were planning to exhibit products at the EICMA International Motorcycle and Accessories Exhibition, held in Milan on 5 to 10 November, that infringe patents owned by Pirelli. The first application was against Tianjin Kingtyre Group and Kingtyre Deutschland over Pirelli's EP 2 519 412. The patent protects a "motorcycle tyre and pair of motorcycle tyres" and is valid in Italy, Germany and France, among others. Judge Alima Zana authorised the seizure of the allegedly infringing tyres on 5 November (case ID: UPC_CFI_650/2024). The second application was against Chinese car and motorcycle tyre manufacturer Sichuan Yuanxing Rubber and the sub council of the China Council for the Promotion of International Trade Automotive. The patent-in-suit was EP 3 519 207, which protects a "motorcycles tyre" and is valid in Italy, Germany and France, among others. The seizure was granted by judge Pierluigi Perrotti (case ID: UPC_CFI_649/2024). Due to the urgency in both cases, the seizures were authorised by single judges. Both seizures were successfully enforced at the EICMA. Pirelli was represented in both cases by Matteo Orsingher, Davide Graziano and Federica Franchetti of Italian firm Orsingher Ortu Avvocati Associati. JUVE Patent is not aware of the defendants' counsel.
UPC forges ahead with Patent Mediation and Arbitration Centre
The Unified Patent Court has appointed Aleš Zala as the director of the new Patent Mediation and Arbitration Centre. Zalar has held the role of president of the European Centre for Dispute Resolution (ECDR) for 12 years, where he works as a mediator, arbitrator, and consultant in international rule of law reforms. Previously, Zalar was a judge and president of the District Court of Ljubljana. In addition, he was Minister of Justice in Solvenia from 2008 to 2012, and was Acting Minister of Home Affairs between 2011 and 2012. He will divide his time between Ljubljana and Lisbon, where the centre's offices are based. As JUVE Patent learned back in May, the UPC states are keen to implement the centre in the coming months; it is the last piece of the puzzle in the original plan for the new court system. Zalar's task is now to forge ahead with the plan and coordinate with the UPC states. This would include, for example, selecting suitable mediators for patent disputes.
Local division Copenhagen's first case deals with heat exchangers
Earlier this year the UPC caseload statistics had shown one infringement case had been filed at the local division Copenhagen in February (case ID: ACT_9679/2024). However, the parties and patent were not made public while the action was still being served in Serbia. Now the details can be seen in the court's case search tool. The claimant is Vahterus Oy, a Finnish family company for sustainable heat exchanger solutions. The defendant is Euro Heat doo, a Serbian manufacturer of plate heat exchangers. The patent-in-dispute is EP 2 673 576, which covers a "device for separating droplets and an use of such a device". The claimant is represented by Helsinki-based lawyer Arttu Ahava from Finnish law firm Berggren. The judges assigned to the case are Alima Zana, Mélanie Bessaud, and presiding judge Peter Agergaard. JUVE Patent is not yet aware whether a hearing has been scheduled.
On 1 September, Romania officially became a contracting UPC state. It is the 18th member state and brings a market of around 19 million inhabitants. According to an EPO press release, this year more than one thousand users requested a delay in registering their unitary patents until after 1 September so as to extend the scope of protection to Romania. Last year Romanian companies made 42 patent applications to the EPO, of these 23 were granted. The most popular technologies for patent applications from Romania in 2023 were computers, IT methods, measurement, medical technology, biotech, transport, and consumer goods, all with 7.1% each. Six other EU countries have signed the UPC Agreement but not yet ratified it. These are Ireland, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Greece, Hungary, and Slovakia.
Headquarters outside EU not sufficient grounds for security deposit
In its dispute with Edwards Lifesciences over EP 3 769 722, Meril Life Sciences had demanded the deposit of a security. Meril argued that, because Edwards Lifesciences is based in the US, not only could it be difficult to enforce claims for reimbursment of litigation costs, but there is also uncertainty due to lack of precedent concerning the recognition of UPC decisions and orders by US courts. The Nordic-Baltic Regional Division has dismissed the application for security. According to the judges around presiding judge Stefan Johansson, the imposition of such a security constitutes a restriction of the right to an effective remedy before a court. Therefore the need to protect the defendant must be weighed against the burden on the claimant. The fact that the latter is located in the United States and there is not yet precedent for enforcing UPC orders in the US, is not in itself sufficient for ordering a security for costs, according to court. Furthermore, the Nordic-Baltic Regional Division did not see any evidence suggesting that a possible order for costs by the UPC would not, or only in an unduly burdensome way, be enforceable in the US (case ID: ACT_582093/2023). In a further order in the same dispute, the court also dismissed an application to stay proceedings pending a decision by the EPO Opposition Division on the patent's validity.
A report at the end of the July shows English-language proceedings at the UPC have surpassed 50% for the first time. Initially German was the most popular, but in April English overtook German for the first time with 48% of cases. It has since remained in the lead with 51% of cases, while German accounts for 43%. For example, this week’s oral hearing in Novartis/Genentech vs Celltrion at the Düsseldorf local division was held in English. French, Italian and Dutch all come third with 2% each. The report also provided a breakdown of the type of cases filed. The courts of first instance have seen 447 cases since the UPC launched, including 170 infringement cases and 192 counterclaims for revocation. The majority of infringement cases were filed at the Munich local division (67). Düsseldorf and Mannheim come second and third with 36 and 24 cases respectively. The Munich local division has also seen the highest number of revocation cases with 82, while Mannheim has 33 and Düsseldorf 25. The local divisions in Lisbon and Ljubljana have yet to see any infringement or revocation cases.
UPC to cooperate with European Patent Office in IT matters
The UPC has announced it is entering into cooperation with the European Patent Office regarding IT matters. Initially, the institutions will develop a case management system for the court. As the UPC and EPO must digitally exchange extensive information on a regular basis, the cooperation is aimed at facilitating this process, as well as the further improvement and streamlining of digital collaboration. According to the press release, the cooperation will enable the UPC to "benefit from the experience and expertise of the EPO concerning digital systems for patent prosecution" and "to be fully in control of the development as well as the running and maintenance of the system". The UPC and the EPO intend to fast track the project and aim to have it up and running by mid-2025. The patent community will likely view the news as a positive development, given that many have been dissatisfied with the CMS so far due to a number of technical problems.
UPC adjusts working time at courts of first instance
Yesterday the UPC announced it would adjust the working time percentages of some part-time judges at the courts of first instance. This is said to be in response to the rising caseload. The changes will affect the Nordic-Baltic regional division, Hamburg local division and Ljubljana local division. Furthermore, the presidium has adapted the capacity at the Court of Appeal. Currently, the judges at the Nordic-Baltic regional division are Kai Härmand and Stefan Johansson, at the Hamburg local division Sabine Klepsch and Stefan Schilling, and at the Ljubljana local division Mojca Mlakar. The changes are to be introduced in September.
Alexion fails to score PIs against Amgen and Samsung Bioepis
After the oral hearing in late June, the local division Hamburg rejected the PI applications of the AstraZeneca subsidiary Alexion against Amgen und Samsung Bioepis. Today the court handed down its reasoning which is still not available on the UPC website. But JUVE Patent learned from well-informed sources that presiding judge Sabine Klepsch, judges Stefan Schilling, Alima Zana and TQJ Rudi Goedeweeck found infringement, but had doubts that Alexion's patent EP 3167888 B1 would survive an opposition at the EPO (case IDs: UPC_CFI_124/2024 and UPC_CFI_123/2024). Alexion wanted the court to prohibit Amgen and Samsung Bioepis from selling their drugs for the treatment of rare blood diseases, Bekemv and Epysqli respectively, in the UPC territory. The two products are based on biosimilars of the antibody eculizumab. Alexion markets the original product under the brand name Soliris. The EPO had granted EP 888, whereupon Samsung Bioepis filed an opposition together with Hoffmann Eitle in May. The Polish law firm WTS Patent Attorneys filed a third-party observation in the EPO proceedings. With its two judgments, the local division Hamburg has now also followed the guidelines of the UPC Court of Appeal that a PI may not be issued if there is sufficient doubt that the patent is valid. Alexion had filed the PIs with the help of a German team from Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, whereas Amgen defended itself with Bardehle Pagenberg and Samsung Bioepis with Simmons & Simmons at the UPC. The appeal is open to Alexion. According to the CMS, there are currently no other UPC cases between the parties pending before the court. But the opponents are also facing off in the US, as well as in revocation actions at national courts in the UK and the Netherlands. In Germany Alexion and Amgen were involved in a case concerning orphan drug exclusivity.
The latest figures from the UPC show English continues to be the most common language of proceedings. In its monthly statistics, the court reported 411 cases as of the end of June. Of these, 48% were filed in English, 46% in German. The remaining cases are in Dutch, French and Italian. Initially German was the most common language of proceedings but in April this year, English overtook German for the first time with 48% of cases. However, competition between the two languages is still close. Compared to May, the proportion of English-language proceedings fell by 2% in June, whereas those in German increased by 2%. Therefore, although figures indicate English is becoming the most common language of proceedings long-term, even a few new lawsuits in one or the other language could still tip the scale given the current number of lawsuits.
We use cookies on our website. Some of them are essential, while others help us to improve this website and your experience.If you are under 16 and wish to give consent to optional services, you must ask your legal guardians for permission.We use cookies and other technologies on our website. Some of them are essential, while others help us to improve this website and your experience.Personal data may be processed (e.g. IP addresses), for example for personalized ads and content or ad and content measurement.You can find more information about the use of your data in our privacy policy.You can revoke or adjust your selection at any time under Settings.
If you are under 16 and wish to give consent to optional services, you must ask your legal guardians for permission.We use cookies and other technologies on our website. Some of them are essential, while others help us to improve this website and your experience.Personal data may be processed (e.g. IP addresses), for example for personalized ads and content or ad and content measurement.You can find more information about the use of your data in our privacy policy.Here you will find an overview of all cookies used. You can give your consent to whole categories or display further information and select certain cookies.
