UPC Roundup (1 week): first UK injunction, clarifications on evidence preservation, intermediate generalization, lots of new cases, and more

This is the new structure of our Unified Patent Court Roundup, which is now developing throughout the week. Quick explainer:

During the week, we continually add content to this article and the most recent news item is always added on top.
At the end of the week, we rearrange and augment (such as by adding hearing lists) the content to turn it into a final roundup. The arrangement is then based on substantive criteria and hierarchical.

You get a UPC Roundup of the same structure as always when the week is over, but now you can see it developing during the course of the week, giving you a second option (the other being our LinkedIn posts) to access of our UPC coverage. The URL (web address) remains the same, just that during the week it’s a news page and then transforms into a roundup like caterpillar into a butterfly.

Very important UPC decisions, lawsuits etc. will still be discussed in separate, dedicated articles, but those articles will be referenced here as well.

We do not share this page by email during the week as it changes frequently.

1. CoA clarifies key standard for evidence preservation orders (Maguin v. Tiru)

(link to detailed article)

The Court of Appeal (CoA) has affirmed that Unified Patent Court (UPC) divisions have broad discretion when ordering evidence preservation, including whether or not to hold a hearing. The appellate panel made clear that there is no automatic right to be heard in such proceedings. It clarified that evidence preservation requests are not held to the same urgency standard as preliminary injunctions. Moreover, patent validity is not to be assessed unless there are exceptional circumstances, such as an adverse ruling from the European Patent Office (EPO) or a national revocation court.

2. Mannheim LD

2.1 Grants first-ever UK injunction under UPC framework (Fujifilm v. Kodak)

(link to detailed article)

On July 18, 2025, the Mannheim Local Division (LD) issued two decisions in cases where it had previously severed the UK-related claims. In one of the two decisions, the court granted Fujifilm the UPC’s first-ever injunction covering the UK, ordering three Germany-based Kodak entities to cease infringement of UK parts of EP3511174. The injunction, grounded in Section 61(1)(a) of the UK Patents Act 1977, is enforceable based on the defendants’ German domicile and includes remedies also governed by UK law. Alongside the injunction, Fujifilm is entitled to an accounting, enabling it to calculate damages for past infringement pursuant to Section 61(1)(c) of the UK Patents Act 1977. The Mannheim LD applied UK statutes throughout its patent remedies analysis, including provisions for product destruction, recall, and market removal. The court declined declaratory relief that would not bind UK authorities and rejected Kodak’s prior-use defenses, finding them insufficient under UK legal standards.

2.2 Counsel’s unavailability no reason for postponement; participation by video suggested (Faro Technologies v. PMT Technologies & Blankenhorn)

In proceedings for provisional measures in Mannheim LD, the court has denied a request from the first defendant (PDF (in German)), PMT Technologies (Suzhou), to reschedule the oral hearing set for September 1, 2025. Both of the defendant’s representatives, an attorney-at-law and a patent attorney, cited overlapping vacation plans as grounds for the postponement. One informed the court that he would be starting his vacation on the day of the hearing, while the other would already be away. However, no concrete booking documentation was provided by the patent attorney. Judge-rapporteur Dirk Boettcher (“Böttcher” in German) made it clear that personal scheduling conflicts of counsel are not sufficient reason to delay a hearing in urgent provisional matters. Instead, the court suggested the defendants appoint and instruct alternate counsel or participate via video conference. The applicant and the second defendant now have until July 24, 2025 to raise any objections to such video participation.

3.Hamburg LD: Nera Innovations v. Xiaomi decision published, clarifies intermediate generalization standard

In the July 10, 2025 decision, Xiaomi’s revocation counterclaim succeeded to the extent that Nera’s patent-in-suit became too narrow to be infringed (July 10, 2025 ip fray article). The Hamburg LD has now published the written ruling (PDF (in German)).

Intermediate generalization due to omission of key technical term (“magnetic”) from original application

As compared to the original patent application, Nera had removed the word “magnetic” from a key part of claim 1 describing the substrate’s function, originally “configured to change a direction of a magnetic field.” By omitting that term, the claim scope broadened beyond what had been originally disclosed, effectively making it cover more than magnetic field-based receivers. That change led the court to declare the patent invalid in its granted form, as it violated Article 123(2) of the European Patent Convention (EPC). Although one of Nera’s auxiliary requests salvaged a narrower version of the patent, it didn’t match Xiaomi’s accused technology, resulting in a win for the defendants.

Time required to respond to auxiliary requests is not a numbers game

The court also addressed Xiaomi’s objection to the large number of auxiliary requests, 33 in total. While Xiaomi sought more time to respond, the court rejected the request, noting that despite the appearance of volume, the actual substance of the amendments was limited. Much like a recent ruling by the Mannheim LD (section 3 of the June 10, 2025 ip fray article), it emphasized that evaluating auxiliary requests is a case-by-case matter, not a “numbers game.” The Hamburg LD aligned itself to a similar approach, a substance-over-form approach the permissible number of auxiliary requests depends less on raw quantity and more on the complexity of changes and the number of claim elements under dispute. Here, the limited number of legal and technical issues justified the standard procedural timelines.

Prior art must be relevant to a given technical field to be eligible

Unofficial translation of the headnote:

“If a prior art document has a comparable functional principle but a different application domain (e.g., adjusting the resonance frequency of an antenna device in a near-field communication receiver vs. constructing and manufacturing a power receiver for wireless charging), it does not constitute prior art that a skilled person would consider when seeking a solution to the problem addressed by the patent-in-suit (Arts. 54 and 56 EPC).”

4. Dusseldorf LD

4.1 Language switch may involve balancing the ability to litigate in the given language with company-internal realities (Husqvarna v. Positec)

The President of the Court of First Instance (CFI) granted defendant Positec’s motion to change the language of proceedings to the language of the patent (English) (PDF). On the one hand, a defendant’s overall ability to handle litigation in the language of the country in which it operates may weigh in favor of that language. On the other hand, this consideration must be balanced with the internal realities and communication channels of the legal and technical departments that are, or will have to be, involved with the litigation.

This line of reasoning aligns with the CoA’s earlier ruling in Med-El v. Advanced Bionics (item 12 of our September 14, 2024 UPC Roundup) where the CoA held that German being an official language in the countries in which the parties were based weighed against switching to English. But the CoA made it clear that this circumstance was not dispositive.

4.2 Preliminary injunction and clarification of consequences of absence from hearing (Aesculap v. Shanghai International)

(link to detailed article)

The Dusseldorf LD granted a preliminary injunction against Shanghai International Holding Corporation, ruling in favor of Aesculap. The court found Shanghai International liable, even though it is not the product’s manufacturer nor definitively proven to distribute it, because it acts as the European Authorized Representative and intermediary under the medical device CE marking regime. Citing Article 63(1) UPC Agreement (UPCA), the court held that liability attaches to intermediaries whose services facilitate infringement (LinkedIn comment by Kather Augenstein’s Christof Augenstein).

The defendant had informed the court that it would not appear at the hearing. The court said an intentional absence does not result in a default judgment but triggers a full merits-based decision relying on written submissions and the applicant’s hearing arguments.

The court also clarified that to effectively deny infringement claims, defendants must substantively dispute specific allegations, general denials or burden-of-proof arguments alone are insufficient under Rule 171.2 Rules of Procedure (RoP). Aesculap’s infringement claims were sufficiently specific, and the defendant’s failure to rebut them was fatal. Shanghai International was also ordered to provide certain information that could help Aesculap identify other parties to sue.

5. Munich LD schedules confidential FRAND hearing (Lenovo v. ASUSTek)

The Munich LD has scheduled an additional interim hearing for July 21, 2025 (PDF (in German)), to address FRAND licensing issues in Lenovo’s ongoing patent infringement actions against certain ASUS entities. The court held that the hearing, to be conducted in English and behind closed doors, was necessary given the sensitive nature of the topics to be discussed, citing Rule 105.2 of the RoP. The order remains binding unless formally reviewed under Rule 333 RoP.

6. Milan LD rejects application for reinstatement (Pirelli Tyre v. Sichuan Yuanxing Rubber & China Council for the Promotion of International Trade)

The Milan LD has rejected a motion by Chinese tire manufacturer Sichuan Yuanxing seeking reinstatement of its right to request a review of a prior seizure order (PDF (in Italian)). The court held that Sichuan’s application, though formally grounded in Rules 9 and 300 of the RoP, in this case should be assessed under Rule 320 RoP, which governs re-establishment of rights. The court emphasized that such relief is available only when a deadline was missed due to circumstances outside the party’s control despite all due care. Sichuan claimed it had never been served with the seizure order or related documents, but the court found this claim unconvincing. It concluded that service had been validly carried out in accordance with Italian law and that Sichuan’s refusal to accept service could not be construed as a failure of service. Accordingly, the motion was deemed unfounded and denied. The court also noted that, pursuant to Rule 320.7 RoP, this order is final and not subject to appeal.

7. Settlement (Pirelli Tyre v. Kingtyre)

(link to LinkedIn post)

8. New cases

8.1 New Mannheim LD case: NEC enforcing video patent against Chinese smartphone maker (and African market leader) Transsion

(news item contributed by Florian Mueller)

Transsion just settled a standard-essential patent (SEP) dispute with Philips (July 16, 2025 ip fray article) and earlier this year took licenses from Qualcomm (settlement) and Nokia (without litigation). It is now facing what could be the first shot fired in a new SEP enforcement campaign:

Japan’s NEC, an Access Advance licensor, is suing Transsion (and various affiliated companies and resellers) in the UPC’s Mannheim LD over EP3057321 (“Video decoding device, video decoding method, and program”). This patent has six more years to go and has been declared essential to the High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC or H.265) standard. It can be licensed bilaterally or, more commonly, via the HEVC Advance pool.

NEC previously asserted this patent against TCL in the Munich LD. That dispute settled last fall by TCL taking an Access Advance license (October 30, 2024 ip fray article). By then, nothing noteworthy had happened in the UPC case with respect to that patent. Presumably NEC didn’t expect there to be an advantage in terms of the Munich LD already being greatly familiar with the patent, and opted for Mannheim, a UPC division that is also pretty busy and where SEP holders have achieved great results, but which is nowhere near as inundated with cases as the Munich LD. NEC may have bet on getting a decision faster by suing in Mannheim this time, irrespectively of all other factors that make Munich an appealing venue.

Transsion’s most important region is Africa, and it is (just like China, India and Latin America) part of a set of regions for which Access Advance offers reduced royalty rates in recognition of market-specific price sensitivity. Interestingly, even those lower rates do not appear to have persuaded Transsion to sign up. Very few SEPs have been registered with the African patent offices, and that may give rise to discussions. But Transsion also sells devices in markets with high numbers of SEP registrations, such as in Europe, and it must respect the rules that apply there.

Panel: Presiding Judge Prof. Peter Tochtermann, Judge Dirk Boettcher (“Böttcher” in German) and Judge András Kupecz (a Dutch national assigned primarily to the Munich seat of the Central Division (CD)). A Technically Qualified Judge may be assigned soon.

It could be that the case has already settled in the event that Transsion took an Access Advance license at the same time it settled with Philips, which is an Access Advance licensor (list) like NEC. However, Philips also has non-video SEPs in its portfolio.

Counsel for NEC: Bardehle Pagenberg’s Dr. Volkmar Henke (who has been lead counsel in numerous other cases brought by Access Advance licensors).

Counsel for Transsion has yet to enter an appearance as this is a new filing.

8.2 Other infringement (main) proceedings

Robert Bosch GmbH v. Lidl Stiftung & Grizzly Tools GmbH: German engineering heavyweight Bosch has launched dual infringement actions in the Mannheim LD against Grizzly Tools GmbH & Co. KG and major German retailer Lidl. The dispute concerns two European patents: EP3030383, covering an “angle grinder having an electromotive direct drive,” and EP2318184, “switchable gear in a hand-held power tool.”
Honeywell Control Systems Ltd. v. Solvest, Solvink, Sovex Systems: Also in the Mannheim LD, Honeywell is suing multiple defendants, including Solvest and its affiliates, over EP2563695, which relates to a “telescopic belt conveyor.”
Huawei Technologies Co. v. HMD Global: Huawei has filed an infringement action against HMD in the Mannheim LD. The contested patent is EP3667981, which pertains to “method, terminal apparatus, and network apparatus for determining feedback information,” adding to a growing docket of SEP and non-SEP disputes between mobile tech players.
NEC Corporation v. Transsion (2nd case): A second case has emerged in the Mannheim LD involving NEC and Transsion. The patent in suit is EP2645714, relating to video encoding and decoding technologies.
Sun Patent Trust v. Transsion: Reinforcing the broader push against Transsion, Sun Patent Trust has entered the fray. The case at the Mannheim LD centers on EP2903267, a patent involving “image encoding/decoding methods and devices.” While JVC appears to be pursuing parallel enforcement in Brazil, Sun has opted to engage through the UPC.

8.3 Preliminary injunction proceedings

Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v. A.Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l. Sinocare Inc. (The Hague LD)

8.4 Revocation action

Huntsman v. BASF: A new revocation action has been filed at the Paris seat of the CD. Huntsman Corporation is targeting BASF’s EP1516720, which claims a “composite element comprising a polyurethane adhesion promoter.”
Wittenstein SE v. Vestas Wind Systems A/S (CD Munich)

9. Recent and upcoming hearings

9.1 Recent 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)

9.2 Upcoming hearings

Monday, July 21, 2025:
- Zentiva Portugal, Lda. v. Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH (CoA)
- Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH v. Zentiva Portugal, Lda. (CoA)
Tuesday, July 22, 2025:
- TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC v. Texas Instruments Incorporation and others (Mannheim LD)
Thurday, July 24, 2025:
- Dyson Technology Limited vs. DREAME INTERNATIONAL (Hamburg LD)
Thursday, July 31, 2025:
- DDP Specialty Electronic Materials US, LLC. v. Greenchemicals S.R.L. (Dusseldorf LD)
Friday, August 01, 2025:
- Headwater Research LLC v. Samsung Electronics GmbH (Munich LD)
Wednesday, August 06, 2025:
- Cilag GmbH International and Ethicon LLC v. RiVOLUTiON GmbH (Munich LD)
Tuesday, August 12, 2025:
- Amgen, Inc. v. Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi-Aventis Groupe S.A. and Sanofi Winthrop Industrie S.A (CoA)
- Amgen, Inc. v. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. (CoA)
Thursday, August 14, 2025:
- Washtower IP B.V. v. INDUSTRIEBETEILIGUNGS- UND BERATUNGS GMBH, BEGA CONSULT INTERNATIONALE HANDELSAGENTUR GMBH & CO. KG, BEGA BBK SP. Z O.O. SP. K.UL., NEG NOVEX WHOLESALE COMPANY FOR ELECTRICAL AND BUILDING SERVICES ENGINEERING GMBH (The Hague LD)

10. Around the court

10.1 UPC to finalize CMS rollout; temporary freeze starts September 18

(link to UPC news item)

The UPC has announced that the second and final phase of its new Case Management System (CMS) will go live on September 23, 2025. This update will fully replace the current CMS, enabling users to file and manage all existing and new cases exclusively on the new platform. Ahead of the launch, a system freeze will occur from 6:00 p.m. on Thursday, September 18, 2025 through Tuesday, September 23, 2025. Users are urged to complete any urgent filings before the freeze begins; however, emergency submissions during that time will still be possible via a secure link that the court will provide. The court noted that the initial rollout, which occurred on July 8, 2025, was limited to opt-outs and representative registration. Additional guidance, including training videos and documentation, will be made available regularly on the UPC website, and users are encouraged to consult these resources before seeking direct support.

10.2 UPC gets a record number of new infringement cases (31) in June, plus 6 preliminary injunction motions

(news item contributed by Florian Mueller)

The UPC just published its case load data as per June 30, 2025 (UPC news item). Normally, those numbers are updated earlier in the month. The numbers are tremendous: 31 new patent infringement actions, more than in any other month (at least since the start, when many complainants had prepared their complaints so they could file on or shortly after June 1, 2023) and 6 applications for provisional measures (preliminary injunction (PI) motions).

By comparison, the previous peak of infringement actions (main proceedings) for a given month was 19 for this year and 21 last year. For PI motions, it’s also a new record at least over the course of the last 12 months, where no other month had more than 5.

For the first calendar half-year of 2025, the total number of infringement actions is 112, a 27% year-on-year increase (and a similar increase over the previous calendar half-year, i.e., July-December 2024).

The UPC is steadily becoming more popular. It still has to “compete” with national courts except when parties wish to enforce or challenge unitary patents. Its frontloaded proceedings make it an expensive jurisdiction in terms of upfront costs, and there are situations in which patentees and their counsel prefer not to put all eggs in one basket. But the results speak for themselves, and that includes, not least, the high quality of the work performed by specialized, super-motivated judges.

The primary challenge facing the UPC with respect to its case load is geographic concentration. Of the 31 infringement complaints filed in June, 12 went to Munich, 7 to Mannheim, 6 to Dusseldorf and 3 to Hamburg. That means 28 (or 90%) of the 31 infringement complaints were filed in the German LDs, with the LDs in The Hague (the most popular non-German LD), Paris and Copenhagen getting only one case each. The six PI motions were all filed in German LDs (3 in Dusseldorf, 2 in Hamburg, 1 in Mannheim). This concentration is a major topic of discussion in the wider UPC ecosystem. ip fray supports the idea of giving more LDs the chance to prove that they, too, are high-quality patent enforcement venues. But litigants are often risk-averse and go where they consider the results predictable, which is more logical than a mere herd instinct, but also means that there are underexploited opportunities in many places.

10.3 Leading UPC litigator shares positive experience at The Hague LD

A prominent UPC litigator, Bardehle Pagenberg’s Professor Tilman Mueller-Stoy (“Müller-Stoy” in German) has shared his feedback following a preliminary injunction hearing at the Hague LD, praising the court for its efficiency, preparedness, and professionalism (LinkedIn post). The panel of presiding Judge Brinkman and Judges Kokke, Johansson, and Kretschmann was lauded for their deep familiarity with the case file, proactive communication ahead of the hearing, and incisive questioning that drove a nearly four-hour, high-level legal debate. Unlike some other divisions or even the CoA, the judges did not issue a preliminary opinion at the start, but their probing questions and understanding of commercial realities spoke volumes.

Practical aspects were also praised: clerks ensured seamless logistics, provided detailed organizational guidance in advance, and extended personal courtesies like water for pleading counsel. The hearing ran smoothly both in substance and setup, with tech, breakout rooms, and overall coordination receiving top marks. The Hague LD, the litigator concluded, is a highly recommendable forum for UPC proceedings.

10.4 Judge Kircher (Mannheim LD) promoted within German court system

(link to LinkedIn post)

Judge Dr. Holger Kircher of the UPC’s Mannheim LD is set to succeed Judge Andreas Voß (“Voß” in German) as presiding judge of the 6th Civil Senate at the Karlsruhe regional appeals court, following his retirement. The Karlsruhe court serves as the appellate body for patent decisions from the Mannheim regional court, a key venue for patent litigation in Germany.

(link to detailed article)

Mannheim LD: counsel’s unavailability no reason for postponement; participation by video suggested (Faro Technologies v. PMT Technologies & Blankenhorn)

In proceedings for provisional measures in Mannheim Local Division (LD), the court has denied a request from the first defendant (PDF (in German)), PMT Technologies (Suzhou), to reschedule the oral hearing set for September 1, 2025. Both of the defendant’s representatives, an attorney-at-law and a patent attorney, cited overlapping vacation plans as grounds for the postponement. One informed the court that he would be starting his vacation on the day of the hearing, while the other would already be away. However, no concrete booking documentation was provided by the patent attorney. Judge-rapporteur Dirk Boettcher (“Böttcher” in German) made it clear that personal scheduling conflicts of counsel are not sufficient reason to delay a hearing in urgent provisional matters. Instead, the court suggested the defendants appoint and instruct alternate counsel or participate via video conference. The applicant and the second defendant now have until July 24, 2025 to raise any objections to such video participation.

Around the court: UPC to finalize CMS rollout; temporary freeze starts September 18

(link to UPC news item)

The Unified Patent Court (UPC) has announced that the second and final phase of its new Case Management System (CMS) will go live on September 23, 2025. This update will fully replace the current CMS, enabling users to file and manage all existing and new cases exclusively on the new platform. Ahead of the launch, a system freeze will occur from 6:00 p.m. on Thursday, September 18, 2025 through Tuesday, September 23, 2025. Users are urged to complete any urgent filings before the freeze begins; however, emergency submissions during that time will still be possible via a secure link that the court will provide. The court noted that the initial rollout, which occurred on July 8, 2025, was limited to opt-outs and representative registration. Additional guidance, including training videos and documentation, will be made available regularly on the UPC website, and users are encouraged to consult these resources before seeking direct support.

Nera Innovations v. Xiaomi decision published, clarifies intermediate generalization standard

In the July 10, 2025 decision, Xiaomi’s revocation counterclaim succeeded to the extent that Nera’s patent-in-suit became too narrow to be infringed (July 10, 2025 ip fray article). The Hamburg Local Division (LD) has now published the written ruling (PDF (in German)).

Intermediate generalization due to omission of key technical term (“magnetic”) from original application

Time required to respond to auxiliary requests is not a numbers game

Prior art must be relevant to a given technical field to be eligible

Unofficial translation of the headnote:

“If a prior art document has a comparable functional principle but a different application domain (e.g., adjusting the resonance frequency of an antenna device in a near-field communication receiver vs. constructing and manufacturing a power receiver for wireless charging), it does not constitute prior art that a skilled person would consider when seeking a solution to the problem addressed by the patent-in-suit (Arts. 54 and 56 EPC).”

Language switch may involve balancing the ability to litigate in the given language with company-internal realities (Husqvarna v. Positec)

This line of reasoning aligns with the Court of Appeal’s (CoA’s) earlier ruling in Med-El v. Advanced Bionics (item 12 of our September 14, 2024 UPC Roundup) where the CoA held that German being an official language in the countries in which the parties were based weighed against switching to English. But the CoA made it clear that this circumstance was not dispositive.

New cases: surge in UPC filings brings fresh patent disputes

(link to LinkedIn post)

As the Unified Patent Court (UPC) continues to see record-setting filings of cases, especially in June 2025, when filings hit an all-time high, new cases are steadily surfacing across divisions. Here’s a rundown of some of the latest developments:

Robert Bosch GmbH v. Lidl Stiftung & Grizzly Tools GmbH: German engineering heavyweight Bosch has launched dual infringement actions in the Mannheim Local Division (LD) against Grizzly Tools GmbH & Co. KG and major German retailer Lidl. The dispute concerns two European patents: EP3030383, covering an “angle grinder having an electromotive direct drive,” and EP2318184, “switchable gear in a hand-held power tool.”
Honeywell Control Systems Ltd. v. Solvest, Solvink, Sovex Systems: Also in the Mannheim LD, Honeywell is suing multiple defendants, including Solvest and its affiliates, over EP2563695, which relates to a “telescopic belt conveyor.”
Huawei Technologies Co. v. HMD Global: Huawei has filed an infringement action against HMD in the Mannheim LD. The contested patent is EP3667981, which pertains to “method, terminal apparatus, and network apparatus for determining feedback information,” adding to a growing docket of SEP and non-SEP disputes between mobile tech players.
NEC Corporation v. Transsion (2nd case): A second case has emerged in the Mannheim LD involving NEC and Transsion. The patent in suit is EP2645714, relating to video encoding and decoding technologies.
Sun Patent Trust v. Transsion: Reinforcing the broader push against Transsion, Sun Patent Trust has entered the fray. The case at the Mannheim LD centers on EP2903267, a patent involving “image encoding/decoding methods and devices.” While JVC appears to be pursuing parallel enforcement in Brazil, Sun has opted to engage through the UPC.
Huntsman v. BASF: A new revocation action has been filed at the Paris seat of the Central Division (CD). Huntsman Corporation is targeting BASF’s EP1516720, which claims a “composite element comprising a polyurethane adhesion promoter.”

Around the court: UPC gets record number of new infringement cases (31) in June, plus 6 preliminary injunction motions

(news item contributed by Florian Mueller)

The Unified Patent Court just published its case load data as per June 30, 2025 (UPC news item). Normally, those numbers are updated earlier in the month. The numbers are tremendous: 31 new patent infringement actions, more than in any other month (at least since the start, when many complainants had prepared their complaints so they could file on or shortly after June 1, 2023) and 6 applications for provisional measures (preliminary injunction (PI) motions).

New Mannheim LD case: NEC enforcing video patent against Chinese smartphone maker (and African market leader) Transsion

(news item contributed by Florian Mueller)

Japan’s NEC, an Access Advance licensor, is suing Transsion (and various affiliated companies and resellers) in the UPC’s Mannheim Local Division (LD) over EP3057321 (“Video decoding device, video decoding method, and program”). This patent has six more years to go and has been declared essential to the High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC or H.265) standard. It can be licensed bilaterally or, more commonly, via the HEVC Advance pool.

Counsel for NEC: Bardehle Pagenberg’s Dr. Volkmar Henke (who has been lead counsel in numerous other cases brought by Access Advance licensors).

Counsel for Transsion has yet to enter an appearance as this is a new filing.

Around the court: leading UPC litigator shares positive experience at The Hague LD

A prominent UPC litigator, Bardehle Pagenberg’s Professor Tilman Mueller-Stoy (“Müller-Stoy” in German) has shared his feedback following a preliminary injunction hearing at the Hague Local Division (LD), praising the court for its efficiency, preparedness, and professionalism (LinkedIn post). The panel of presiding Judge Brinkman and Judges Kokke, Johansson, and Kretschmann was lauded for their deep familiarity with the case file, proactive communication ahead of the hearing, and incisive questioning that drove a nearly four-hour, high-level legal debate. Unlike some other divisions or even the Court of Appeal (CoA), the judges did not issue a preliminary opinion at the start, but their probing questions and understanding of commercial realities spoke volumes.

Dusseldorf LD grants preliminary injunction; clarifies consequence of hearing absence (Aesculap v. Shanghai International)

(link to detailed article)

The Dusseldorf Local Division (LD) granted a preliminary injunction against Shanghai International Holding Corporation, ruling in favor of Aesculap. The court found Shanghai International liable, even though it is not the product’s manufacturer nor definitively proven to distribute it, because it acts as the European Authorized Representative and intermediary under the medical device CE marking regime. Citing Article 63(1) UPC Agreement (UPCA), the court held that liability attaches to intermediaries whose services facilitate infringement (LinkedIn comment by Kather Augenstein’s Christof Augenstein).

Munich LD schedules confidential FRAND hearing (Lenovo v. ASUSTek)

The Munich Local Division (LD) has scheduled an additional interim hearing for July 21, 2025 (PDF (in German)), to address FRAND licensing issues in Lenovo’s ongoing patent infringement actions against certain ASUS entities. The court held that the hearing, to be conducted in English and behind closed doors, was necessary given the sensitive nature of the topics to be discussed, citing Rule 105.2 of the Rules of Procedure (RoP). The order remains binding unless formally reviewed under Rule 333 RoP.

Settlement (Pirelli Tyre v. Kingtyre)

(link to LinkedIn post)

CoA clarifies key standard for evidence preservation orders (Maguin v. Tiru)

(link to detailed article)

Milan LD rejects application for reinstatement (Pirelli Tyre v. Sichuan Yuanxing Rubber & China Council for the Promotion of International Trade)

The Milan Local Division (LD) has rejected a motion by Chinese tire manufacturer Sichuan Yuanxing seeking reinstatement of its right to request a review of a prior seizure order (PDF (in Italian)). The court held that Sichuan’s application, though formally grounded in Rules 9 and 300 of the Rules of Procedure (RoP), in this case should be assessed under Rule 320 RoP, which governs re-establishment of rights. The court emphasized that such relief is available only when a deadline was missed due to circumstances outside the party’s control despite all due care. Sichuan claimed it had never been served with the seizure order or related documents, but the court found this claim unconvincing. It concluded that service had been validly carried out in accordance with Italian law and that Sichuan’s refusal to accept service could not be construed as a failure of service. Accordingly, the motion was deemed unfounded and denied. The court also noted that, pursuant to Rule 320.7 RoP, this order is final and not subject to appeal.

Around the court: Judge Kircher (Mannheim LD) promoted within German court system

(link to LinkedIn post)

Judge Dr. Holger Kircher of the Unified Patent Court’s (UPC’s) Mannheim Local Division (LD) is set to succeed Judge Andreas Voß (“Voß” in German) as presiding judge of the 6th Civil Senate at the Karlsruhe regional appeals court, following his retirement. The Karlsruhe court serves as the appellate body for patent decisions from the Mannheim regional court, a key venue for patent litigation in Germany.