This is a summary of developments in and around the Unified Patent Court (UPC) in the week since our June 14, 2025 UPC Roundup.
1. CoA
1.1 No security deposit requirement for enforcement (Knaus Tabbert v Yellow Sphere)
The Court of Appeal (CoA) has dismissed (PDF) Knaus’s objection, upholding an earlier decision that denied the suspensive effect of an appeal and effectively allowing immediate enforcement. The CoA deemed Knaus’s objection inadmissible, clarifying that while the UPC’s Rules of Procedure (RoP) permit procedural directions during ongoing proceedings, they don’t authorize the reversal or amendment of a final, conclusive order. In a headnote, the CoA says that “[a]n objection to the rejection of an application for suspensive effect pursuant to R. 223 RoP, in which the applicant merely challenges the Court of Appeal´s opinion expressed in the order rejecting the application, is inadmissible.”
The court further noted that the RoP’s option to modify orders applies solely to procedural, not substantive, matters. Knaus’s reliance on Article 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (right to effective judicial protection) was rejected, as the Charter guarantees access to one judicial instance, not multiple avenues of review.
Additionally, the court stated that even if the objection had been admissible, it would have failed on the merits. Finally, the CoA dismissed the notion that enforcing first-instance decisions should generally require a security deposit, emphasizing that this provision must be interpreted autonomously, independent of national legal traditions like those in Germany or Austria, which impose stricter enforcement conditions.
1.2 Alexion denied rehearing in Amgen, Samsung patent disputes: extremely high hurdle (Alexion v. Amgen and Alexion v. Samsung Bioepis)
Alexion’s attempt to secure a rehearing against Samsung, following the affirmance of the dismissal of its provisional measures request, has been rejected by the CoA. Both the Hamburg LD and the CoA had previously denied Alexion provisional measures, citing insufficient certainty regarding the patent’s validity.
Alexion claimed the appellate decision contained fundamental procedural flaws, specifically alleging the introduction of a new, unrebutted claim interpretation standard and reliance on factual inaccuracies. However, the CoA determined that Alexion’s application for a rehearing failed to satisfy the stringent requirements outlined in Article 81(1) UPCA and Rule 247 RoP. The court underscored that a rehearing is an extraordinary remedy, reserved exclusively for defects of such severity that they fundamentally undermine the integrity of the legal process and would demonstrably alter the outcome of the case. The court clarified that parties are responsible for clearly presenting their arguments, and courts are not required to address every submission or pre-disclose their reasoning unless a decision is unforeseeable.
1.3 UPC sides with defendants on security costs (AorticLab v Emboline)
In a significant ruling, the CoA’s second panel has held that defendants in patent infringement cases will never be required to provide security for costs, even when they file a revocation counterclaim. This overturns a previous ruling by the Munich LD, which had ordered AorticLab to provide €200K in security to Emboline.
2. Dusseldorf LD: no security for costs without clear enforcement burden or instability (Headwater Research v. Samsung Electronics)
The court rejected (PDF) Samsung’s application for Headwater Research to provide €400K as security for potential legal costs. The court reasoned that security for costs, as outlined in Rule 158 RoP and Article 69(4) UPCA, should only be granted when enforcing a potential cost order would be clearly burdensome or when there is concrete evidence of the claimant’s financial instability.
3. 10x Genomics injunction against Curio upheld (10x Genomics v. Curio)
The Dusseldorf Local Division (LD) has issued a final judgment in 10x Genomics v. Curio Bioscience, affirming a preliminary injunction that bars Curio from selling its seeker spatial transcriptomics kits in Germany, France, and Sweden. The value of the dispute for the infringement action was set at € 3,000,000, with the defendant bearing 70% of the costs and the claimant 30%.
4. Hamburg LD: preliminary injunction and clarification of key legal standards (Steros v. OTEC)
The Hamburg LD has issued a preliminary injunction in favor of Spain’s Steros GPA against Germany’s OTEC Präzisionsfinish. The court’s ruling established key points: the defendant bears the burden of proving invalidity, injunctive relief can be granted if infringement (in this case, through the combination of the accused product with a different product) opens new markets and creates opportunity costs for the patent holder, and enforcement security is not automatic but requires the defendant to show a clear need.
5. Munich LD explains criteria for venue in multi-defendant patent lawsuits (Headwater v. Motorola & Flextronics)
The Munich LD has denied Motorola Mobility’s preliminary objection against Headwater Research’s infringement lawsuit, providing a clear roadmap for handling multi-defendant cases. The court asserted its venue competence under Article 33(1)(b) of the UPC Agreement (UPCA), which bases jurisdiction on a defendant’s domicile, by designating a Germany-based Motorola subsidiary as a valid anchor defendant. Furthermore, the court extended jurisdiction to the U.S. Motorola entities, citing their common corporate group and a unitary infringement allegation.
6. Milan LD rejects Ericsson’s “External Eyes Only” confidentiality bid (Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v. ASUSTeK & Arvato)
The court rejected (PDF) Ericsson’s request for an “external eyes only” confidentiality agreement, which would have limited access to sensitive documents solely to outside experts, excluding any employees of the involved parties. The telecommunications giant had argued for this stringent measure in a dispute with ASUSTeK, but didn’t provide concrete evidence that allowing a single, confidentiality-bound ASUSTeK employee access to the information would genuinely distort competition. The court deemed Ericsson’s concerns too vague and unsubstantiated, reiterating that restricting access to documents is an exceptional step demanding more than mere hypothetical risks. While Ericsson’s request was denied, the court did grant leave to appeal, paving the way for the CoA to potentially clarify the standard for such confidentiality regimes in future cases.
7. Mannheim LD: Samsung takes ZTE FRAND fight to UPC as fourth jurisdiction (ZTE Corporation v. Samsung Electronics)
Samsung is aggressively pursuing its FRAND licensing dispute with ZTE, now involving an unprecedented five global courts if one includes China (where ZTE brought a FRAND case). This multi-jurisdictional strategy, which includes a new counterclaim in the UPC and existing cases in the UK, Germany, China, and the U.S., aims for global FRAND determinations and various related remedies. The move creates a complex legal environment, with many questioning if it’s primarily a tactic to slow down infringement proceedings, even as the UPC strives for quick resolutions. This decision now requires Samsung to pay an additional advance on fees.
8. Munich LD: settlement looms large in Esko-Graphics v. XSYS
The Munich LD has stayed proceedings between Esko and XSYS entities to facilitate settlement negotiations (PDF). The decision to suspend the infringement and revocation proceedings, as well as an application to amend the patent, was made at the joint request of both parties. This pause is intended to allow for “fruitful settlement negotiations” free from the pressure of ongoing court proceedings. The parties also jointly requested that the EPO Board of Appeal reschedule a hearing in parallel opposition appeal proceedings. The UPC proceedings will remain suspended regardless of the EPO’s decision.
9. New Cases
9.1 Infringement (main) proceedings
- HFI Innovation v. Huawei Technologies (Mannheim LD) (link to LinkedIn post; HFI is a MediaTek company)
- Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology v. ASUSTeK (Mannheim LD) (link to LinkedIn post)
- Steros GPA Innovative S.L. v. OTEC Präzisionsfinish (Dusseldorf LD; for the first part of the dispute, see item 4 above)
9.2 Preliminary injunction proceedings
- PMT Technologies v. Faro Technologies (Mannheim LD)
10. Recent and upcoming hearings
10.1 Recent hearings
- Tuesday, June 17, 2025:
- Headwater Research v. Samsung Electronics (Dusseldorf LD)
- Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v. Microsoft Corporation and vice-versa (CoA)
- Wednesday, June 18, 2025:
- Qualcomm v. Network Systems Technologies (CoA; cross-appeals Rule 327 RoP)
- Winnow Solutions v. Orbisk (The Hague LD)
- Friday, June 20, 2025:
- N.J. Diffusion v. Gisela Mayer (Paris LD)
10.2 Upcoming hearings
- Tuesday, July 01, 2025:
- Heraeus Electronics & Heraeus Precious v. Vibrantz (Munich LD)
- Aesculap AG v. Shanghai International Holding Corporation (Dusseldorf LD)
- Roku International B.V. and Roku, Inc. v. Dolby International AB (CoA)
- Roku International B.V. and Roku, Inc. v. Sun Patent Trust (CoA)
- 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)
11. Around the court
The European Patent Office’s (EPO) Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA) has aligned its claim construction standard with that of the Unified Patent Court (UPC), a move expected to foster greater consistency in European patent law. This decision puts an end to the previous divergence where some argued for ignoring the description if a claim seemed clear in isolation.
While the claims are more than just a starting point, the EBA emphasized that ignoring the broader context provided by the description and drawings would be “unattractive” given the UPC’s consistent application of these elements in its 10x Genomics v. NanoString ruling. This harmonization aims to streamline the process for patentees and third parties across the EPO’s examination and opposition proceedings and the UPC’s infringement and validity assessments, contrasting with the more context-sensitive U.S. approach to claim construction. This alignment signals a trend towards further convergence between EPO and UPC case law, promising a more unified European patent landscape.