This is a summary of developments in and around the Unified Patent Court (UPC) in the week since our July 26, 2025, UPC Roundup.
1. CoA: trade secrets must be timely protected (Strabag v. Swarco Futurit)
In a decision dated August 1, 2025 (PDF), the Court of Appeal (CoA) rejected the applications submitted by Strabag and Chainzone, which sought to designate certain technical information as confidential in the context of their ongoing patent infringement proceedings against Swarco. The court emphasized that requests to restrict access to confidential information under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure (RoP) must be filed concurrently with the submission of the information, and cannot be made for the first time on appeal.
The court underscored three key points: first, that confidentiality restrictions can only be imposed on parties and their representatives via Rule 262A RoP; second, that a confidentiality request must accompany the filing of the relevant material; and third, that technical characteristics of products that are not publicly accessible and require complex analysis can qualify as trade secrets under Article 58 UPC Agreement (UPCA), if properly protected. However, the court upheld the confidentiality of certain new material submitted during appeal, recognizing that it contained sensitive technical data not previously disclosed and was accompanied by proper confidentiality measures.
While the court did not explicitly reference the concept of reverse-engineering, it held that information may retain its confidential status even if it is theoretically obtainable through substantial effort, such as complex technical measurements. This reasoning is particularly relevant in the context of patent litigation, where a claimant may need access to a product’s internal workings to establish an infringement theory. Developing such a theory often involves reconstructing how the product functions, akin to a reverse-engineering process, which is necessary to determine whether the contested product falls within the scope of the asserted patent claims.
2. Munich LD
2.1 Samsung defends against Headwater with successful revocation counterclaim (Headwater Research v. Samsung)
The Munich Local Division (LD) has dismissed (PDF) Headwater’s infringement action against Samsung, declaring the asserted patent invalid following a successful counterclaim for revocation brought by Samsung. The court concluded that the patent claims extended beyond the original disclosure and lacked sufficient technical distinction over prior art. It also rejected Headwater’s attempts to amend the patent and dismissed all 28 auxiliary requests proposing narrower claim sets.
In Dusseldorf, Samsung defended itself against another Headwater patent (Section 5.2 further below).
2.2 Renault got partial access to court files (Avago Technologies v. Tesla)
The Munich LD granted (PDF) Renault partial access to pleadings and evidence from three concluded proceedings involving Avago Technologies and Tesla entities relating to EP1770912. The request was made under Rule 262.1(b) of the RoP, which allows members of the public to seek access to court files after proceedings have ended.
3. NBRD orders defendant to halt patent infringement, publish rectification, and pay interim damages (TEXPORT v. Sioen)
The Nordic-Baltic Regional Division (RD) ruled (PDF) in favor of the claimant, TEXPORT, finding that Sioen had infringed claims 1 and 10 of EP2186428. The court also held Sioen liable for damages, acknowledging that Sioen knowingly engaged in infringing activities. The court also granted TEXPORT an interim award of €50K in damages to cover the anticipated costs of the upcoming proceedings to assess full compensation. In rejecting Sioen’s procedural objections, including challenges to TEXPORT’s legal standing and jurisdictional defenses tied to ongoing litigation in Belgium, the court emphasized that it had proven its status as exclusive licensee and was entitled to enforce the patent under Article 47(2) UPCA. Additionally, the court ordered a series of corrective and transparency measures aimed at halting the infringement and informing the market. Sioen was directed to publish a rectification notice on its websites and social media platforms, clearly stating that its products infringe the claimant’s patent rights.
4. CD Milan: no confidentiality shield against the court (Novartis v. Zentiva)
The Milan Central Division (CD) awarded Novartis partial cost compensation of €3K in relation to its defense against Zentiva’s failed application to intervene in the related case between Novartis and Accord (PDF). Although Novartis had requested the full cost ceiling of €38K, the court found that the company failed to meet the required standard of proof under Rule 156.1 of RoP to substantiate the reasonableness and proportionality of the claimed amount. Citing Article 69 UPCA and Rule 151(d) RoP, the court emphasized that cost awards must be both reasonable and proportionate, and that the burden of proof lies with the party seeking reimbursement. The court rejected this approach, holding that confidentiality cannot be invoked to withhold information from the court itself, and that Rule 262A RoP applies to third-party confidentiality, not parties or the court.
5. Dusseldorf LD
5.1 Enforcement backed by daily penalities (Aesculap v Shanghai International Holding Corporation)
The Dusseldorf LD issued an enforcement order (PDF) against Shanghai International Holding, threatening daily coercive fines of up to €30K if the company fails to comply with a prior order to provide disclosure. This order follows the previous injunction order secured by Aesculap (July 10, 2025, ip fray article). The court found that Aesculap’s request for the imposition of coercive fines was justified under Rule 354.3 of the RoP, which permits such penalties to ensure enforcement of court orders. The Court acknowledged that Aesculap had a legitimate interest in such a warning to avoid unnecessary delays and complications. The imposition of a daily upper fine limit, the Court reasoned, provides sufficient flexibility to tailor penalties based on the defendant’s conduct in the event of non-compliance.
5.2 Samsung fends off Headwater complaint by showing added matter (Headwater Research v. Samsung Electronics)
The Dusseldorf LD on July 30, 2025 (PDF), rejected Headwater’s infringement action and revoked EP3110069 after finding Samsung’s counterclaim for revocation well-founded on grounds of added subject matter. The decision also reinforced the UPC’s commitment to its front loaded procedural model. Citing Rule 9.2 of the RoP, the court rejected a new line of argument that Headwater introduced for the first time during the oral hearing, which sought to reinterpret the foundational disclosure across multiple newly cited passages of a lengthy 200-page application. The panel held that neither the court nor the opposing party should be forced to address fresh claims raised too late in proceedings. The Court cited its own precedent in the Tridonic v. CUPOWER case (item 3 of March 8, 2025 UPC roundup), firmly establishing that late-stage argumentation must be excluded to preserve procedural fairness.
In Munich, Samsung defended itself against another Headwater patent (Section 2.1 further above).
5.3 After out-of-court settlement, only limited review of case value required (N.V. Nutricia v. Nestlé Health Science)
The Dusseldorf LD concluded proceedings in furtherance of settlement between N.V. Nutricia and Nestlé Health Science (PDF). The court clarified that when parties settle out of court, a detailed analysis of every factor potentially affecting the dispute’s value is not required.
Rather, a reasonable estimate based on the available facts is sufficient. Both parties disagreed over the value of the claims, with Nutricia pushing for a lower valuation based on the case’s limited commercial scope and nearing patent expiry, while Nestlé argued for higher figures, citing broader implications and judicial discretion. The court, however, maintained its earlier assessment, determining that €250K was an appropriate value for the infringement action and €500K for the revocation counterclaim. The court permitted the withdrawal of both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation.
5.4 Cost ceiling not divided by liability (Maxeon Solar v. Aiko Energy)
The Dusseldorf LD has directed (PDF) Maxeon Solar to provide a €100K security deposit to cover potential legal costs incurred by the defendants 3 and 5 to 8. The court’s reasoning closely aligns with earlier precedent and a previous order issued in April 2025 (PDF) that had already granted a similar cost security to defendants 1, 2, and 4. The court emphasized that the security for costs under Rule 158 of the RoP may be requested at any stage of proceedings.
The court also clarified that exercising this right in reaction to updated financial data or earlier rulings does not amount to bad faith. A core principle was reaffirmed that when claims are brought against multiple defendants without specifying individual liability, all parties are equally entitled to defend against both infringement and damages, and their share in the disputed amount does not influence the cost ceiling. This was used to justify splitting the €200K ceiling for recoverable legal costs equally between the two defendant groups.
6. CD Paris
6.1 Court affirmed contextual interpretation of patent claims (Anonymous v. Essetre Holding)
In a decision issued on July 28, 2025 (PDF), the Paris seat of the Central Division (CD) rejected a revocation action targeting EP2875923, upholding the patent as amended during proceedings. The court emphasized that while patent terms are generally given their usual meaning in the relevant technical field, the full context, including the description and drawings, can support a different, narrower interpretation. The court dismissed all grounds of invalidity and ordered that the patent be maintained as amended under the defendant’s principal request. In light of the defendant’s amendments, the court apportioned costs, ordering the claimant to bear 70% and the defendant 30%. The value of the proceedings was confirmed at €100K for cost ceiling purposes.
6.2 Non-novelty and lack of inventive step are different theories even if based on same prior art reference (Sibio Technology v. Abbott Diabetes)
In a decision dated July 21, 2025, CD Paris rejected (PDF) a revocation action filed by Sibio against Abbott, thereby upholding the validity of EP3831283. The court dismissed Sibio’s claims of added matter, lack of novelty, and lack of inventive step, reinforcing the strength of Abbott’s patent across multiple UPC member states. The court clarified that lack of novelty and lack of inventive step are distinct and independent grounds for revocation; referencing a prior art document for one ground without a detailed novelty analysis is procedurally insufficient.
It confirmed that even dependent claims require clearly stated grounds for revocation from the outset, they are not automatically subsumed under challenges to independent claims. The court interpreted Rule 75(3) of the RoP as inapplicable to parallel revocation counterclaims in local divisions once an oral hearing has concluded in a central division revocation action.
7. Brussels LD reinforces strict evidentiary standards for cost recovery (OrthoApnea & VIVISOL v. Anonymous)
In a decision issued on July 25, 2025 (PDF), the Brussels LD ordered the defendant to pay €41.7K as recoverable litigation costs to the claimants. The court states that any request to raise or lower the cost ceiling, set by the UPC’s administrative decision of April 24, 2023, must be submitted as early as possible in the proceedings. Late requests, especially those introduced during cost proceedings, are generally inadmissible unless the defendant was only informed of the claimed costs at that stage.
Emphasizing evidentiary standards, the court confirmed that cost claims are legal “facts” and must be substantiated by the claimant, applying the same burden and standard of proof as in any other UPC proceeding. The court also rejected references to rely on national legal customs, asserting that UPC procedural rules prevail. While much of the evidence offered by the claimants was insufficient to prove the claimed costs beyond the set ceiling, the court, exercising its discretion and principles of equity, awarded the full €38K representation cost ceiling, alongside partial allowances for expert, interpretation, and travel expenses.
8.New cases
8.1 Paris LD gets world’s first serious patent infringement lawsuit against OpenAI (KeeeX v. Open AI, Trueepic, Adobe, C2PA)
8.2 Other infringement actions
- ASUS Technology Licensing Inc. v. Xiaomi Technology, EP3346616 (Munich LD) (link to LinkedIn post)
- ASUS Technology Licensing Inc. v. OROPE & Guangdong OPPO, EP3346616 (Munich LD) (link to LinkedIn post)
- Shangrao Xinyuan Yuedong Technology Development Co., Ltd v. Longi, EP3297043 (Munich LD) (link to LinkedIn post)
- Julius Blum GmbH v. ARTURO SALICE S.p.A., EP3392438 (Munich LD)
- Wirtgen GmbH v. E-mak Makine Insaat Ticaret Ve AS, EP3524733 (Munich LD)
- GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA v. Moderna, EP4066856 and EP4226941 (The Hague LD)
- Steros GPA v. OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH, EP4249647 (Hamburg LD)
9. Recent and upcoming hearings
9.1 Recent hearing
- Friday, August 01, 2025:
- Headwater Research LLC v. Samsung Electronics GmbH (Munich LD) (announcement of decision discussed in Section 2.1 further above)
9.2 Upcoming hearings
- 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)
- Friday, August 22, 2025:
- HL Display AB v. Black Sheep Retail Products B.V.Black Sheep Retail Products B.V. (The Hague LD)
10. Around the court
10.1 UPC lays groundwork for PMAC operations
In a key step toward operationalizing the Patent Mediation and Arbitration Centre (PMAC), the Administrative Committee of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) adopted its first set of decisions on July 2, 2025, establishing the foundational framework for the selection and conduct of future mediators and arbitrators. These decisions include the Code of Conduct for Arbitrators at the PMAC, the Code of Conduct for Mediators at the PMAC, and the selection criteria for both roles.
Adopted in accordance with Article 35(1) of the UPCA, the new regulatory documents draw from international best practices and are designed to support the amicable resolution of disputes involving European patents and European patents with unitary effect. The selection criteria outline essential qualifications, including professional experience, education, legal or technical expertise, language skills, and a commitment to impartiality and the PMAC’s procedural rules.
10.2 UPC website switches to new website URL
The Unified Patent Court (UPC) has updated its website URL to https://www.unifiedpatentcourt.org as part of a broader digital upgrade. While the website’s content and features remain unchanged, users accessing the old web address will be automatically redirected to the new one. The UPC encourages users to update their bookmarks and begin using the new URL for future visits.