This is a summary of developments in and around the Unified Patent Court (UPC) in the week since our August 3, 2025 UPC Roundup.
1. Dusseldorf LD
1.1 Injunction by default judgment (igus v. Whale Technology)
The Dusseldorf Local Division (LD) has issued a default judgement against Whale Technology (PDF in German), finding that the company infringed EP3912243. The ruling came after Whale failed to respond to the lawsuit after being served at its Hannover Messe trade fair booth. Based on a plausibility assessment of the complaint, the court held that the accused product matched every feature of the asserted patent claim and was offered within the UPC’s jurisdiction.
The court ordered an immediate injunction halting further infringement, a recall of infringing products placed on the market since March 20, 2024, and their removal from commercial channels. Whale must give igus detailed, verifiable sales and supply chain data, pay €26,000 in provisional costs, and face fines of up to €30K per day or €10K per product for non-compliance. The court also held Whale liable for damages, to be determined later, and refused to stay enforcement.
1.2 Second medical use to be resolved by CoA before parallel case continues (Sanofi v. Amgen)
The Dusseldorf LD has stayed infringement proceedings over European patent EP4252857, along with a related revocation counterclaim (PDF). The claimants argued that the infringement issues in both cases were factually and legally identical with a view to second medical use, making it efficient and fair to pause the current proceedings until the Court of Appeal (CoA) rules in the earlier matter. The defendants opposed, but the judges agreed, finding the stay consistent with proper administration of justice and noting that, if there are no material differences between the cases, the present claim would likely be dismissed.
2. Hamburg LD clarifies limits on foreign lawyer fees and cost-related expenses (Alexion Pharmaceuticals v. Samsung Bioepis)
The Hamburg LD ordered a partial cost reimbursement (PDF) following its earlier rejection of a request for provisional measures. The court stated that the successful party is generally entitled to reasonable and proportionate legal costs under Article 69 UPCA but applied a detailed assessment of necessity and appropriateness. It allowed the recovery of litigation fees for two lawyers and two patent attorneys, as well as expenses for a technical expert, finding them justified and supported by sufficient documentation. However, it refused to reimburse fees for two English solicitors, ruling that their role in coordinating related European and European Patent Office (EPO) proceedings was not shown to be necessary for the UPC case, especially given their costs exceeded those of the primary legal team. In this litigation, no remedies were sought with respect to the UK, as the patent holder pursued separate enforcement there.
3. CD Paris clarifies cost recovery rules for preliminary objections (Seoul Viosys v. Photon Wave)
The Paris seat of the Central Division (CD) has clarified when parties can recover costs from preliminary objection proceedings (PDF), ultimately awarding Seoul Viosys €11.2K from Photon Wave. The judge held that a separate cost decision under Rule 150 of the Rules of Procedure (RoP) is admissible when a preliminary objection results in a transfer of the case to another division, even if the matter ends with an order rather than a formal “decision.”
Without such recovery, the court noted, successful parties could be left uncompensated in contravention of Article 69 UPCA. In setting the recoverable amount, the court fixed the value of the underlying revocation action at €500K but ruled that a preliminary objection is worth only a quarter of that figure because it turns solely on legal, not technical, issues. A claim for €6,720 in expert fees was rejected, with the court finding that the party’s legal team could have addressed the Article 33(4) UPCA issues without external opinion.
4. CD Milan: EPO rightly denied unitary effect over confusion concerning one of the patentees (CNRS, Bodycap, Université de Rennes v. EPO)
The three joint patent owners of EP3691518 sought unitary effect (PDF in French), but in the European Patent Office’s view, misidentified one of the co-owners in their filing. Although they submitted a correction three days after the deadline, the standing judge of the CD Milan ruled that the EPO had acted correctly in denying unitary effect, as the formal requirements had not been met.
5. Mannheim LD rejects separate cost claim for security for cost appeal (Dish v. Aylo)
The Mannheim LD has ruled that parties cannot seek a separate cost order for expenses related to procedural orders (PDF in German), such as applications for security for legal costs under Rule 158 RoP, before the conclusion of the main proceedings. Such costs, the court held, must be addressed within the single cost-fixation procedure that follows the final decision on the merits, in line with Rule 150 RoP. The judge-rapporteur rejected a bid by the defendants to recover legal representation costs from an appeal over a security-for-costs order, finding the application inadmissible and, in any case, moot.
6. New cases
6.1 Infringement actions
- Nokia Solutions and Networks Oy v. Zeekr, Lotus Cars & Lynk & Co, EP3799333 (Mannheim LD) (link to LinkedIn post)
- Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v. HMD Global Oy, EP4109968 (Munich LD) (link to LinkedIn post)
- Dai Nippon Printing Co. v. Zapp Precision Metals, EP3257964 (Mannheim LD)
6.2 Preliminary injunction proceedings
- Merz Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Viatris Santé, EP2377536 (Paris LD)
7. Recent and upcoming hearings
7.1 Recent hearing
- Wednesday, August 06, 2025:
- Cilag GmbH International and Ethicon LLC v. RiVOLUTiON GmbH (Munich LD)
7.2 Upcoming hearings
- 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)
- Friday, August 22, 2025:
- HL Display AB v. Black Sheep Retail Products B.V.Black Sheep Retail Products B.V. (The Hague LD)
- Monday, September 1, 2025:
- Faro Technologies, Inc. v. PMT Technologies (Suzhou) Co., Ltd. and other (Mannheim LD)
- Wednesday, September 3, 2025:
- Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v. Sinocare Inc. A.Menarini Diagnostics (The Hague LD )
8. Around the court
8.1 Chinese court enforces $73M U.S. judgment, strengthening case for cross-border patent ruling recognition
China’s court system has enforced a U.S. patent judgment, a move that could influence future disputes in the UPC. The recent enforcement case will likely be used by Chinese claimants to argue that UPC rulings can, in fact, be enforced in their country.
8.2 Cross-border patent play; why BSH cases gravitate toward the UPC
On LinkedIn, ip fray has posed a question of whether the combination of the UPC and the European Court of Justice’s BSH Hausgeräte v. Electrolux ruling, permitting cross-border patent enforcement, represents a new winning formula. Observers note that parties seeking to leverage the BSH precedent often choose to file in the UPC rather than in national courts, though there may be strategic reasons for this preference. If any BSH-based cases are pending before national courts, such examples would be of particular interest.