Case Reports

In Rematec v Europe Forestry, the UPC Court of Appeal overturned the Mannheim Local Division’s revocation of the patent and, applying Article 75(1) UPCA, issued a final decision on both validity and infringement despite no infringement finding at first instance. The Court adopted a narrower, description‑led approach to claim interpretation, confirmed the patent’s validity, found infringement, and granted final remedies without referring the case back to the Court of First Instance.

In Syntorr v Arthrex, the UPC Court of Appeal clarified that while litigation insurance is not itself a form of security under Rule 158 RoP, it is a relevant factor when deciding whether security for costs should be ordered at all. By failing to consider the claimant’s insurance policy, the Munich Local Division wrongly exercised its discretion. The Court set aside the €2 million security order and confirmed that insurance can mitigate concerns about cost recoverability.

In Fives v REEL, the Hamburg Local Division of the UPC dismissed a standalone damages action despite prior findings of infringement. Although the UPC was competent to assess damages, the court held that national law applied because the relevant events pre‑dated the UPC’s entry into force. Applying German law, the court found that the claimant had not proven causation or lost profit, highlighting the demanding evidentiary burden for price‑reduction damages claims and the importance of substantiating counterfactual tender outcomes.

In Dyson v Dreame, the UPC Court of Appeal issued its first preliminary reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union. The referral concerns the scope of UPC jurisdiction where a non‑EU manufacturer is sued alongside an EU‑based intermediary acting as an authorised representative, and whether provisional measures may extend to non‑UPC states such as Spain. The decision places important questions about anchor defendants, intermediaries and the UPC’s long‑arm jurisdiction before the CJEU.

The UPC Court of Appeal has clarified that where jurisdiction is based on Article 7(2) of the Brussels Regulation (place of harm), it is limited to damage occurring within UPC territory. In Keeex v Adobe, the Court set aside the Paris Local Division’s decision to hear infringement claims relating to non‑UPCA states, confirming that broader territorial reach requires satisfaction of the strict conditions under Article 71b(3).

In KeyMed v PR Medical, the Milan Local Division of the Unified Patent Court rejected a preliminary objection seeking to change the language of proceedings from English to Italian under Rule 14.2(b) RoP. Although the defendant was an Italian company and the action was brought before the Italian local division, the court held that the language protection did not apply because the alleged infringement was not confined to Italy.

IMC Créations is a French company specialising in anti-theft systems for vehicles, particularly commercial vehicles. Among other things, it sells locks for the side and rear doors of commercial vehicles. Mul-T-Lock belongs to the Assa Abloy group and specialises in high security locking and access control systems, in particular pick-resistant keys and locks. IMC alleged that Mul-T-Lock’s MPV 1000 padlock infringes its unitary patent EP4153830 and the corresponding Swiss national validation.

The dispute arises out of earlier proceedings between Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG (claimant) and Vibrantz GmbH (defendant), relating to European Patent No. 3215288. The Munich Local Division issued a substantive decision on 10 October 2025 addressing infringement and a counterclaim for revocation. Among other findings, the court partially revoked the patent in three Contracting Member States and dismissed the infringement action. In its cost decision, the court apportioned 40% of the costs to the defendant and 60% to the claimant.

It was foreseen that the requirements of the Unitary Patent Regulation (1257/2012) might result that old European patent applications (effective filing date before 1 March 2007) could be ineligible for unitary patent protection. The UPC has now confirmed the view of the EPO that this is indeed the case.

The UPC Mannheim Local Division revoked Centripetal’s patent relating to automated cyber‑event analysis, finding the claimed combination of static and machine‑learned algorithms anticipated by prior art (HAWK) and additional amendments lacking inventive step. With the patent invalidated in Germany and France, the infringement claim against Palo Alto Networks was dismissed. An appeal to the UPC Court of Appeal remains possible.

The UPC Munich Local Division invalidated Sanofi’s cabazitaxel patent, finding that Phase III clinical trial disclosures created a reasonable expectation of success—departing from the EPO’s earlier conclusion.

The UPC Court of Appeal’s November 2025 decisions in Amgen v. Sanofi and Meril v. Edwards provide the most comprehensive guidance to date on inventive step, claim construction, sufficiency, added matter, and procedural rules. The Court clarified how the “objective problem” should be formulated, reinforced the need for a clear pointer or motivation for obviousness, and aligned many principles with established EPO and national case law. The judgments also address injunctions, proportionality, costs, competence, and amendment admissibility—making them essential reading for anyone navigating UPC litigation.

Hurom v. NUC UPC-CFI_162/2024 LD Mannheim Decision of 2 October 2025

Local Division Düsseldorf Order dated 14th January 2025 UPC_CFI_16/2024, ACT_2379/2024, ORD_63035/2024[1] Infringement Action and Counterclaim for Revocation Background There is a procedural history...

Jozef Frans Nelissen v OrthoApnea S.L., Vivisol B BV (UPC_CFI_376/2023) Decision of 17 January 2025[1] (ORD_598478/2023) One of the early evidence preservation orders from the UPC was granted by the...

Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft v ITCiCo Spain S.L. UPC_CFI_412/2023 Order of 9 January 2025[1] (ORD_58414/2024) BMW sought revocation of EP 2796333 belonging to ITCiCo.

FUJIFILM Corporation v Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH UPC_CFI_355/2023 Decision of 28 January 2025[1] (ORD_598539/2023) Fujifilm brought an infringement action...

Dainese S.p.A. v. Alpinestars S.p.A., Alpinestars Research S.p.A., Omnia Retail S.r.l., Horizon Moto 95 – Maxxess Cergy, Zund.Stoff Augsburg/Ulrich Herpich E.K., Motocard Bike S.I.

Fives ECL, SAS v. REEL GmbH UPC_CoA_30/2024 Order of 16 January 2025[1] (APL_4000/2024) Fives applied to the UPC Local Division in Hamburg for a determination of damages following a prior...

SharkNinja Germany GmbH, SharkNinja Europe Limited v. Dyson Technology Limited (UPC_CFI_443/2023 and UPC_CoA_297/2024) Decisions of 5 May 2024 (Order no.

Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc., Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V. v Roche Diabetes Care GmbH UPC_CFI_454/2023 Decision of 18 December 2024 (ORD_598508/2023[1]) The claimants sought revocation of EP...

DexCom, Inc. v Abbott Laboratories and 13 other Abbott entities UPC_CFI_395/2023 Decision of 11 December (ORD_63909/2024[1]) The second decision on the merits from the UPC came from the Paris Local...

(Infringement action UPC_CFI_15/2023) Decision of 15 November 2024 (ORD_598479/2023[1]) The Munich Local Division (MLD) decided in favour of patentee Edwards Lifesciences Corporation (Edwards) with...

Häfele SE & Co KG v Kunststoff KG Nehl & Co (UPC_CFI_443/2024 relating to EP3767151) Order of 25 November 2024 (ORD_62433/2024 [1]) This Decision from the Court of First Instance of the Unified...

Insulet Corporation v. EOFLOW Co., Ltd. (UPC_CFI_380/2024 relating to EP4201327) Order of 22 November 2024 (ORD_56716/2024 [1]) This Decision from the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent...

AIM Sport v Supponor UPC_CoA_489/2023 and UPC_CoA_500/2023 Decision of 12 November 2024 (ORD_598488/2023 & ORD_598489/2023) AIM Sport had brought both provisional injunction and infringement...

Cardo Systems, Ltd. v Shenzhen Asmax Infinite Technology Co., Ltd. and Hong Kong Yiheng International Technology Co. Limited (UPC_CFI_643/2024 relating to EP4240194) Order of 5 November 2024...

G. Pohl-Boskamp GmbH & C. KG v pharma-aktiva GmbH and others UPC_CFI_541/2024 Order of 20 December 2024 (ORD_67522/2024) The claimant G. Pohl-Boskamp GmbH & C.