10x Genomics, Inc. v. Curio Bioscience, Inc.

MSG Maschinenbau GmbHvsEJP Maschinen GmbH

This UPC costs determination case involved the aftermath of a patent infringement and revocation action concerning EP 3 225 320. The core dispute centered on the reasonableness and necessity of legal fees claimed by the defendant, EJP Maschinen GmbH, for both the infringement suit and the counterclaim for revocation. The court ultimately ruled in favor of the respondent regarding costs, setting a specific amount payable by the claimant, MSG Maschinenbau GmbH.

Sanofi SA as successor of Sanofi Mature IPvsSTADAPHARM GmbH a.o.

In a significant ruling for the pharmaceutical sector, the UPC Local Division Munich revoked European Patent 2 493 466, which covered a novel anti-tumoral use of cabazitaxel. This decision immediately dismissed the associated infringement actions brought by Sanofi against generic competitors such as Stada and Dr Reddy's. The ruling underscores the vulnerability of patents, even those related to specific medical uses, when challenged successfully on grounds of invalidity.

ESTABLISHMENT LABS S.A.vsGC AESTHETICS PARENTCO LIMITED et al.

In this preliminary objection case, Establishment Labs S.A. sued GC Aesthetics Group and its affiliates for infringing EP 3 107 487 B1 related to the Perle implant across multiple jurisdictions, including non-UPC states like Ireland and the UK. The Defendants challenged the UPC's jurisdiction over these national designations. The Local Division of Brussels dismissed the objection, affirming that the UPC possesses international jurisdiction over all parts of a European patent when one defendant is properly sued. This ruling clears the path for the merits phase to determine infringement across all claimed territories.

Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.vsSamsung Bioepis NL B.V.

This UPC decision addressed a cost claim filed by Samsung Bioepis against Alexion Pharmaceuticals following the dismissal and rejection of provisional measures proceedings. The court found that while the overall application was admissible, several elements of the claimed costs were unreasonable or unsupported by evidence. Key adjustments included limiting travel accommodation reimbursement based on the actual arrival time at the hearing location.

DISH Technologies L.L.C.vsAYLO PREMIUM LTD

This UPC decision from Mannheim addresses a procedural motion concerning cost allocation arising from an appeal against a process security order. The court ruled that costs related to defending or challenging such procedural orders cannot be determined separately under Rule 150 of the Rules of Procedure (VerfO). Instead, they must be integrated into the final overall cost assessment following the substantive judgment. Crucially, the application was also deemed moot because the main decision had already established a unified approach to costs.