This is a summary of developments in and around the Unified Patent Court (UPC) in the week since our July, 6 2025 UPC Roundup.
1. CoA
1.1 Service-of-process issues in jurisdictions where no UPC judgment has been enforced yet may weigh in favor of security for costs (Chint New Energy Technology & Astronergy v. Jingao Solar)
The Court of Appeal (CoA) ordered Chinese solar manufacturer JingAo Solar to provide €200,000 in security for potential litigation costs in its ongoing patent dispute with the Chint group. The appeal stemmed from an earlier decision by the Hamburg Local Division (LD), which had rejected Chint’s application for security for costs on the grounds that Chint failed to show concrete evidence that enforcement in China would be unreasonably difficult. The appellate judges disagreed, finding that the lower court had overstepped its discretion.
Notably, the court emphasized that the lack of precedent for enforcing UPC cost decisions in China, combined with documented failures in serving legal documents there, even under the Hague Service Convention, justified serious doubt about future enforceability. The panel dismissed JingAo’s counterarguments and cited the legitimate interest of Chint in seeking security.
Unlike the binary German approach, where plaintiffs outside the EU/EEA are automatically required to post security, the UPC adopts a more nuanced framework, considering financial strength and practical enforcement feasibility. While EU/EEA-based plaintiffs enjoy a presumptive safe harbor, the ruling makes clear that foreign jurisdictions can no longer rely on a lack of enforcement history to escape collateral demands.
1.2 Defendant’s appeal of security requirement inadmissible before panel review, despite leave (Chint New Energy Technology v. Jingao Solar)
In a separate proceeding (but relating to the same dispute as the one discussed in the previous subsection), the CoA declared Chint’s appeal inadmissible in a case concerning a security for costs order made by the Munich LD (PDF).
The Munich LD had previously granted JingAo’s request that Chint post security, alongside a separate, unchallenged order requiring JingAo to do the same. Chint appealed the order, arguing that requiring a defendant in an infringement action, who is also a claimant in a revocation counterclaim, to provide security was legally unsupported and contradictory. The CoA resolved that fundamental question last month (June 20, 2025 ip fray article).
However, the CoA dismissed the challenge, not on the merits, but on procedural grounds. It ruled that the order in question was a “case management”, which under Rule 333.1 of the UPC Rules of Procedure (RoP) must first be reviewed by the panel of the Court of First Instance (CFI) before any appeal can be considered.
The judge-rapporteur had granted leave to appeal, but the appellate panel emphasized that such leave does not override the procedural safeguards in place, nor does it create a legitimate expectation of admissibility. The panel also rejected Chint’s request to escalate the matter to the full CoA, finding no exceptional importance or inconsistency in case law to warrant such a referral.
1.3 Default judgment against claimant does not require plausibility analysis of defenses (Suinno v. Microsoft)
The CoA reversed a decision by the Paris seat of the Central Division (CD) denying default judgment against a claimant. The lower court was unconvinced of the defendant’s arguments on the merits, but the CoA has clarified that a summary assessment is performed only when claimants seek default judgment.
1.4 Violation of right to be heard takes something more than arguments not being explicitly rejected (OTEC Präzisionsfinish v. Steros GPA Innovative)
The CoA denied (PDF) OTEC’s request to suspend enforcement of a preliminary injunction issued against it in a cross-border patent dispute with Spanish rival Steros GPA Innovative. The hurdle for staying enforcement is rather high, and it is particularly not enough to point to arguments that were raised but not explicitly discussed in the appealed decision.
The injunction, granted by the Hamburg LD (June 19, 2025 ip fray article) found it likely that OTEC had infringed Steros’s patent covering an electrolytic medium and ordered OTEC to halt sales across 17 EU countries or face a recurring fine of up to €250,000. OTEC appealed the ruling and simultaneously sought a suspension of its effect, claiming serious legal and procedural errors, including violations of its right to be heard and mischaracterization of disputed facts. However, the CoA rejected OTEC’s bid for a stay, holding that the company had failed to demonstrate the “exceptional circumstances” required to override the general principle that appeals do not have suspensive effect. The court clarified that the alleged errors, including issues with evidentiary standards and prior public use defenses, were not manifest enough to warrant immediate relief. It further noted that OTEC had not established any clear denial of fundamental procedural rights and that its arguments did not outweigh the interest of Steros in enforcing the injunction.
The court clarified that simply pointing to unaddressed arguments in the lower court’s decision is insufficient to justify a stay. The court does not lay out a different standard for decisions on provisional measures, but the expedited nature of the related proceedings may very well have played a role here.
2. Mannheim LD cases
2.1 Refusal by counsel in infringement action to accept service of process of AASI deemed inadmissible (InterDigital v. The Walt Disney Company & BAMTech)
The Mannheim LD has ordered personal service via bailiff on legal counsel representing The Walt Disney Company and its affiliates after their refusal to acknowledge receipt of an anti-anti-suit injunction (AASI) obtained by InterDigital.
The injunction, granted in late May 2025 (May 30, 2025 ip fray article), aims to shield ongoing UPC patent infringement proceedings from interference through foreign anti-suit injunctions. Despite having appeared in the main infringement case, Disney’s legal team declined to acknowledge service of the AASI, arguing that it was not properly served and that they were not formally retained for that separate proceeding. At the same time, however, they submitted statements reserving the right to appeal the AASI order to avoid costs, an inconsistency the court saw as procedural gamesmanship.
The court firmly rejected the tactic, asserting that counsel’s mandate in the main proceedings automatically extends to related AASI matters. It also warned that continued obstruction could lead to sanctions, including a €100K coercive fine and possible exclusion from the case under Rule 291 of the RoP. The court also indicated that Disney’s refusal to engage may bear on future determinations of whether it acted in good faith concerning licensing negotiations. Impllcitly, this means Disney is at a heightened risk of being enjoined.
2.2 Cross-border nature of dispute can weigh in favor of switching language (The Walt Disney Company & BAMTech v. InterDigital)
In a procedural ruling, the President of the Court of First Instance has approved a request by The Walt Disney Company and its affiliates to change the language of the proceedings from German to English in an ongoing infringement dispute (PDF). She found that, given the multinational nature of the parties, most of whom are U.S.-based and use English in business, alongside the fact that the patent was granted in English and the claim itself was filed in English, there was no compelling reason to continue proceedings in German. She emphasized that when the circumstances are evenly balanced, precedent supports giving weight to the defendant’s preference.
3. CD Paris grants Acer, which is being sued by Nokia, access to Nokia-HP documents (Acer Computer v. HP & Nokia Technologies)
The CD Paris granted Acer access to written pleadings and evidence in a concluded revocation case involving HP and Nokia Technologies (PDF). The order stems from Acer’s request under Rule 262.1(b) of the RoP, citing a direct interest in the file since it is facing a related infringement action. While Nokia did not oppose the request, it argued that any granted access should be restricted to prevent dissemination to third parties. The court rejected that position, affirming that once proceedings have ended, the principle of public access prevails, absent any overriding confidentiality concerns.
4. Hamburg LD: declares stay; clarifies director’s liability (Visibly v. Easee & Yves Prevoo)
The Hamburg LD has stayed proceedings in a patent infringement case brought by U.S.-based Visibly Inc. against Easee, as well as managing director Yves Prevoo. The order, issued on June 26, 2025 (PDF), follows the formal declaration of bankruptcy of both Easee companies by a Dutch court in late May. The defendants requested a three-month stay under Rule 311 of RoP and also sought revocation of an earlier security for costs order. While an appeal concerning that security order is now pending before the CoA (item 1.4 of July 6, 2025 ip fray UPC roundup). The court ruled that the stay must apply to the entire case, not just the bankrupt entities, on the basis that continuing litigation against the remaining defendant, Prevoo, would be inappropriate.
Citing appellate precedent, the court reasoned that corporate managing directors cannot be held individually liable for patent infringement solely due to their roles. As a result of the stay, the defendants are temporarily relieved from their obligation to furnish cost security, and all procedural deadlines are suspended. The court clarified that such a stay is not automatic under UPC rules, but representatives are authorized and expected to notify the court and request one once insolvency proceedings are confirmed.
5. CD Milan: “double territoriality” does not mean both offers to supply and use must occur in the same country (Maschio Gaspardo v. Spiridonakis Bros)
The CD Milan ruled (PDF) that Spiridonakis infringed Italian agricultural equipment manufacturer Maschio Gaspardo’s EP1998604. The patent covers a reversible tool for subsoilers, used to loosen compacted soil and was found to be violated by Spiridonakis’s “Bellota Tool,” sold online and shipped to customers in Bulgaria.
Spiridonakis never appeared in the proceedings, prompting the court to issue a decision in absentia. However, the UPC emphasized that such a ruling must still meet evidentiary standards under Rule 355.2 of the RoP, requiring the claimant to substantiate its allegations despite the defendant’s silence. It confirmed that the legal requirement of “double territoriality” under Article 26 UPCA does not demand that both the offer to supply and the actual use of an infringing product occur in the same country. The court also imposed a €500 penalty for each infringing tool sold in violation of the injunction and ordered Spiridonakis to disclose information about its distribution channels, production sources, and involved third parties. Noncompliance with that disclosure would incur a daily fine of €100.
Notably, Spiridonakis used Maschio Gaspardo’s name in marketing the infringing tools, which the court said risked misleading consumers and damaging the Italian company’s reputation.
6. Dusseldorf LD: if plaintiff seeks remedies for UK, successful defendant is entitled to reimbursement of UK legal fees, but within reason (Fujifilm v. Kodak)
The Dusseldorf LD ordered the claimant to reimburse the defendants for the majority of their legal expenses, including the advice they received from UK lawyers, but also drew clear limits on what constitutes recoverable costs.
The dispute, valued at €30 million across parallel infringement and revocation proceedings, had ended with the patent being revoked and the infringement claim dismissed. The defendants subsequently sought reimbursement under Article 69 UPCA and Rules 150 et seq. of the RoP. The court largely upheld the defendants’ request but rejected claims for representation costs tied specifically to the cost proceeding itself, stating that such summary proceedings do not justify “costs upon costs.”
The court also denied reimbursement for a UK barrister’s fees, finding the defendants’ existing team sufficient to handle jurisdictional issues. Importantly, the ruling affirmed that the cost ceiling of €1.5 million, already increased by 25%, was valid and based on mutual understanding during oral proceedings. The claimant’s argument that no formal application for the increase had been made was dismissed.
7. Hamburg LD: Xiaomi defeats third Nera patent assertion in a row (Nera v. Xiaomi Technology)
In a decisive win for Xiaomi, the Hamburg LD ruled today that the Chinese tech giant did not infringe a narrowed version of EP2642632, marking the third consecutive setback for Atlantic IP-backed Nera in its ongoing litigation campaign. The patent, originally owned by LG and directed to wireless power receivers, was found invalid in its granted form, and even a pared-down version survived only partially, without establishing infringement. With Atlantic IP believed to be driving Nera’s legal tactics, the ruling raises larger questions about the strength of its portfolio and the wisdom of targeting Xiaomi as its first defendant.
8. Brussels LD: comprehensive evidence preservation orders in Genentech’s HLX11 patent campaign (Genentech & F. Hoffmann v. Organon & Shanghai Helius Biotech)
The Brussels LD granted Genentech and F. Hoffmann orders to preserve evidence and conduct on-site inspections against Organon Heist B.V. and NV Organon (PDF). The orders were prompted by the anticipated European launch of HLX11—a biosimilar of Perjeta developed by Chinese biopharma firm Henlius and licensed for commercialization by U.S.-based Organon.
The court found Genentech’s evidence sufficiently plausible, citing regulatory filings, corporate press releases, and scientific studies indicating HLX11 contains components protected by EP2949335. The court authorized bailiffs and independent experts to visit Organon’s Belgian and Dutch facilities to obtain samples, internal documents, and manufacturing records related to HLX11. Defendants were ordered to grant full access or face penalties of up to €5 million. Confidentiality measures and procedural safeguards were also imposed, including restrictions on intra-company communication during inspections. Notably, the court permitted use of the seized evidence in parallel invalidity proceedings launched by Organon in the Netherlands.
9. New Cases
9.1 Infringement (main) proceedings
- Avago Technologies v. Renault and Dacia (Hamburg LD)
- Crystal Clear Codec v. OROPE & OTECH (Munich LD)
9.2 Revocation proceedings
- Gilead Sciences v. Academy of Military Medical Sciences (CD Milan)
9.3 Preliminary injunction proceedings
- Occlutech GmbH v. Lepu Medcial Technology (Hamburg LD)
- Occlutech GmbH v. Lepu Medical Technology (Dusseldorf LD)
- MED−EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H v. Zhejiang Nurotron Biotechnology Co. (Hamburg LD)
10. Recent and upcoming hearings
10.1 Recent hearings
- Tuesday, July 08, 2025:
- City Glass and Glazing Private Limited v. Maars Holding (The Hague LD)
- Wednesday, July 09, 2025:
- Motorola Mobility LLC v. ASUSTek Computer Inc (Munich LD)
- Thursday, July 10, 2025:
- Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v. expert e-Commerce GmbH and expert klein GmbH (CoA)
- Friday, July 11, 2025:
- expert klein GmbH, expert e-Commerce GmbH v. Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd (CoA)
- BAUSSMANN Collated Fasteners GmbH. v. Raimund Beck Nageltechnik GmvH (CD Munich)
10.2 Upcoming hearings
- Monday, July 14, 2025:
- Cilag GmbH International v. RiVOLUTiON GmbH (The Hague LD)
- Tuesday, July 15, 2025:
- Snowpixie Co., Ltd. vs. Golf Tech Golfartikel Vertriebs GmbH (Munich LD)
- EOFLOW Co., Ltd. v. Insulet Corporation (CD Milan)
- Friday, July 18, 2025:
- bellissa HAAS GmbH v. Windhager and others (Mannheim LD)
- Edwards Lifesciences Corporationv. Meril Lifesciences PVT Limited, Meril GmbH, Smis International OÜ, Sormedica UAB ( Nordic-Baltic Regional Division)
- Brita SE v. AQUASHIELD EUROPE s.r.o., AQUASHIELD DACH GmbH a.o. (Munich LD)
11. Around the court
- On July 8, 2025, the UPC officially launched its new Case Management System (CMS), now live for select functionalities including opt-out requests and representative registrations (UPC news item). From this date onward, these specific filings must be submitted via the new CMS platform, while all other case types will continue to be handled through the existing system. To facilitate the transition, the UPC has introduced a dedicated CMS support page featuring comprehensive user guides, FAQs, and step-by-step video tutorials. Existing CMS user accounts have been automatically migrated, but users are required to set new passwords by following the “How to access the new CMS” guide. Access to the platform is available via the Front Office and Front Office Portfolio links. The UPC advises users to review all available training materials before submitting support requests, as most common issues are already addressed in the provided documentation.
- In a setback for non-practicing entity Atlas Global, the European Patent Office (EPO) today revoked EP3353901, a WiFi patent it had asserted before the Unified Patent Court, following opposition by Vantiva and TP-Link (link to LinkedIn post). The EPO’s Opposition Division invalidated the patent as granted and dismissed Atlas’s auxiliary requests as an “abuse of procedure.” The UPC’s Dusseldorf LD (April 23, 2025 ip fray article) had already stayed related infringement cases in April, citing a negative preliminary opinion from the EPO. While Atlas may appeal, any ruling would take years, effectively sidelining the litigation and marking a second major loss in its European enforcement campaign.