This is a summary of developments in and around the Unified Patent Court (UPC) in the week since our August 17, 2025 UPC Roundup.
1. CoA
1.1 CoA: warnings against continued default must be requested during default proceedings, not as post-decision correction (Microsoft v. Suinno)
In a recent order (PDF), the Court of Appeal (CoA) clarified the limits of post-decision corrections in default judgment cases. The court rejected Microsoftâs request to modify a prior default judgment against Suinno. Microsoft had asked the appellate judges to supplement their default judgement (July 13, 2025 ip fray article) with a notice under Rule 356.3 of the RoP, which would have warned Suinno that any further default would automatically be final. The panel declined, stressing that such a notice must be requested during the proceedings that lead to the default judgement itself, not afterwards. The court underscored that under Article 76 of the UPC Agreement (UPCA), it is bound by the requests submitted by the parties. Microsoftâs discretionary review request in April had sought a default judgment but never asked for the additional Rule 356.3 warning.
1.2 CoA: confidentiality protections follow the information, not the filing system (Kodak v. Fujifilm)
The CoA dismissed Kodakâs bid for additional confidentiality measures in its patent dispute with Fujifilm (PDF), clarifying that existing protective orders from the lower court remain effective on appeal. The court emphasized that the Rules of Procedure (RoP) and established case law, not the courtâs electronic filing system, govern confidentiality. The court noted that the Mannheim Local Division (LD) had already issued orders extending confidentiality obligations beyond the trial phase and into appellate proceedings. Since Kodak sought to protect the same information already covered by those orders, its Rule 262A application was deemed unnecessary. The order instructed the court registry to maintain restricted access to redacted filings strictly in line with the individuals named in the Mannheim orders, reinforcing that procedural safeguards cannot be expanded based solely on CMS requirements.
1.3 CoA: language barriers alone insufficient to justify court-ordered translation (Barco v. Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology )
The CoA held that unless the court consents to hear witnesses or experts in another language (PDF), or the judges themselves need interpretation, the requesting party must substantiate why interpretation is necessary. Being based in a country where the language of proceedings is not official does not suffice, nor does the fact that company representatives might struggle to follow the arguments. The court emphasized that parties may hire their own interpreters at their own expense if notice is given two weeks before the hearing, but court-ordered simultaneous interpretation, even at the partiesâ cost, requires proper justification.
1.4 CoA judge outlines criteria for ECJ referrals: UPCA, RoP outside EU law; EU Charter not self-sufficient (expert klein v. Seoul Viosys)
In a notable decision (PDF), CoA clarified when the UPC may seek guidance from the EUâs top court. Ruling on a late cost-recovery request, the court’s standing judge Ingeborg Simonsson held that the UPCA and its RoP are not part of EU law and thus cannot be referred to the European Court of Justice for interpretation. The opinion explains that preliminary references are only warranted where genuine questions of EU law arise, such as under directives like the IPR Enforcement Directive, and only if reasonable doubt exists. Invoking the EU Charter alone is insufficient, as its general principles do not justify a referral absent a concrete conflict. The court found the UPCâs one-month deadline for cost motions compatible with EU law and access-to-justice standards, rejecting arguments that it violated the Charter or EU enforcement rules.
1.5 CoA: no post-hearing filing, arguments must be made during hearings (expert klein v. Seoul Viosys)
The CoA ordered another order on August 21, 2025 (PDF (in German)) clarifying that parties may not file post-hearing briefs without prior court approval.
The official headnotes in English:
- Under Rule 36 RoP, the reporting judge may, upon a reasoned request by a party filed before the close of the written procedure, permit the exchange of further pleadings. After that point, there is no basis for submitting additional briefs, particularly not without prior leave of the court. This applies all the more after the oral hearing. Once the hearing has concluded, the case is ready for decision, and parties should refrain from any further exchanges with the court. There is never any need thereafter to summarize what was said at the hearing.
- There is likewise no need or reason to respond in writing to an introduction by the court after the oral hearing. Such an introduction, which does not bind the court in any way, merely serves to highlight questions the court considers particularly relevant and enables the parties to focus on the arguments they deem importantâeither to confirm the preliminary view or to persuade the court otherwise. This must occur during the oral hearing so that the opposing party can respond.
2. Hamburg and Hague LDs make decisions concerning cross-border enforcement under BSH
2.1 Hamburg LD grants UPC’s first-ever injunction for Spain (Dyson Technology Limited v.Dreame)
In a landmark move for cross-border patent enforcement, the Hamburg LD granted Dyson a preliminary injunction (PDF) against Dreame that extends across all 18 UPC member states and, notably, Spain. The court found Dysonâs patent presumptively valid and stressed the risk of price erosion and loss of market share from competing products sold at half of Dysonâs price. Expert reports and witness statements must be assessed for credibility and relevance, but their persuasive value depends on the circumstances and whether they withstand scrutiny under cross-examination. the court further stated that the RoP requires parties to submit evidence in a timely manner, documents introduced after the procedural deadlines will generally be disregarded unless exceptional reasons justify their admission.
2.2 The Hague LD emphasizes consistency of patent enforcement (Moderna v. Genevant Sciences)
The Hague LD confirmed that the court has international jurisdiction over Moderna Spain and Moderna Norway (PDF), dismissing Modernaâs request for review under Rule 333 RoP and denying leave to appeal. The preliminary objections must be detailed and well-founded, sweeping assertions will not succeed. The court upheld the Judge-Rapporteurâs prior order of May 23, 2025 and denied Modernaâs request for an interim appeal.
The judges reaffirmed that the UPC, as a court common to EU member states, can rely on the Brussels Regulation and Lugano Convention to assert jurisdiction where claims are closely connected. They held that Genevantâs allegations that Moderna Spain and Norway infringed patents alongside Moderna Netherlands were sufficiently plausible to meet the low jurisdictional threshold and avoid inconsistent rulings. Modernaâs arguments that holding a marketing authorization does not amount to infringement and that more proof was needed were rejected; the court noted those issues go to the merits, not jurisdiction.
3. Munich LD
3.1 Munich LD decision shows pros and cons of purpose statements, patent exhaustion limits, and claim set vulnerabilities (Brita v. Aquashield)
To Read The Full Story
Continue reading your article with a Membership
3.2 Munich LD: company size is viewed together with other criteria for language switch (Guangdong OPPO v. Innovative Sonic)
The Munich LD granted OPPO and related companiesâ request to shift a Munich LD infringement case from German to English (PDF). The order emphasized that fairness requires weighing all relevant factors, including how parties coordinate internally across jurisdictions. The nine defendants, mostly OPPO group entities based in China and Europe, demonstrated that English is their common working language and that using German imposed translation burdens. The court found no unfairness to the Taiwanese claimant and noted English is widely used in the technology field and among UPC judges.
4. Mannheim LD: late-stage filing denied after ample opportunity(Centripetal v. Keysight technology)
The Mannheim LD has rejected Centripetal’s request to submit a late additional written pleading in its ongoing patent infringement case against Keysight Technologies (PDF). Centripetal argued that new evidence, including alleged relevant functionality in the accused products, warranted further briefing after defendant’s rejoinder. However, the court, confirming the earlier order of the judge-rapporteur dated August 1, 2025, concluded that introducing a new infringement theory at this advanced stage would be procedurally unfair to the defendants and could not be sufficiently addressed before the scheduled oral hearing in October. It also cited that Centripetal had already been given numerous opportunities to present its case.
5. New cases
5.1 Infringement actions
- MEDâEL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H v. Zhejiang Nurotron Biotechnology Co., Ltd., EP4074373 (Hamburg LD) (link to LinkedIn post)
- Topcon Corporation v Optopol Technology Sp. z o.o, EP2845534 (Dusseldorf LD)
- NEC Corporation v. Hisense Visual Technology Co., EP3057321 (Mannheim LD)
- NEC Corporation v. Hisense Visual Technology Co., EP2645714 (Mannheim LD)
- Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI) v. Hisense Gorenje, EP3258692 (Dusseldorf LD) (link to detailed article)
5.2 Preliminary injunction proceedings
- F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. Berlin-Chemie AG, EP1962668 (Dusseldorf LD)
6. Recent and upcoming hearings
6.1 Recent hearings
- Friday, August 22, 2025:
- HL Display AB v. Black Sheep Retail Products B.V.Black Sheep Retail Products B.V. (The Hague LD)
6.2 Upcoming hearings
- Thursday, August 28, 2025:
- Seoul Viosys Co. Ltd. v. Emporia UK and Ireland Limited (CD Paris)
- 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 )
- Thursday, September 4, 2025:
- Meril Gmbh, Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. v. Edwards Lifesciences Corporation and vice versa (CoA)
- Hartmann Packaging A/S v. Omni-Pac Ekco GmbH Verpackungsmittel a. o (Dusseldorf LD)
- Meril Life Science Private Limited, Meril GmbH, Meril Italy srl v. Edwards Lifesciences Corporation (CD Paris)
- Hurom CoLtd v. NUC Electronics Co.Ltd (Mannheim LD)
- Wednesday, September 10, 2025:
- MEDâEL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H. v. Zhejiang Nurotron Biotechnology Co., Ltd. (Hamburg LD)
7. Around the court: PMAC accepting applications by neutrals
The UPC’s Patent Mediation and Arbitration Centre (PMAC) has begun accepting applications for its official roster of mediators, arbitrators and experts as it prepares to become fully operational in early 2026. The Administrative Committee recently adopted the PMACâs codes of conduct and selection criteria, paving the way for parties to choose qualified professionals from an official list to help resolve patent disputes. The initiative aims to build a premier forum for international IP dispute resolution by assembling specialists committed to the highest professional standards. Interested candidates can find further details and apply through PMACâs dedicated webpage.