Audi AG v. Network System Technologies LLC

BFexaQC AGvsNVIDIA Corporation

In this procedural order, the UPC Local Division Munich addressed a request by NVIDIA Corporation for security for costs against BFexaQC AG and ParTec AG. Despite evidence presented regarding Claimant 2's severe liquidity issues, the Court ruled that security was necessary. The judge rapporteur set the required amount at EUR 80,500.00, emphasizing proportionality while safeguarding the Defendants' potential legal expenses.

air up group GmbHvsGuangzhou Aiyun Yanwu Technology Co., Ltd.

In this UPC case concerning an application for preliminary measures, the Court addressed a critical procedural hurdle: service of documents on a defendant domiciled in China. Despite extensive efforts—including formal and informal attempts under the Hague Service Convention—the court found that traditional service methods had failed to yield a certificate of delivery. The judge ruled that these unsuccessful steps constituted 'good service' under Rule 275.2 RoP, effectively allowing the proceedings to move forward despite the lack of confirmed receipt by the defendant.

MSG Maschinenbau GmbHvsEJP Maschinen GmbH

This UPC costs decision addressed the allocation of legal fees arising from a complex infringement and revocation action involving EP 3 225 320. The court scrutinized the reasonableness and necessity of the defendant's extensive cost claims, including those related to 'strategic considerations.' Ultimately, the court partially granted the claim for costs, ordering the claimant to pay €33,224.50 to the respondent. A key procedural point was the rejection of interest on awarded costs.

TIRUvsMAGUIN SAS

This UPC decision addressed a challenge to ex parte evidence preservation orders granted by the Paris Local Division. TIRU sought seizure and site inspections against MAGUIN regarding alleged infringement of its waste incineration patent (EP3178578). MAGUIN challenged these measures, arguing lack of urgency and bad faith on TIRU's part. The court ultimately rejected MAGUIN’s request, affirming that the initial urgent measures were justified given the competitive market environment.

Amycel LLCvsDefendant (unnamed)

This procedural order addresses the critical issue of service of process in a UPC infringement action. The court ruled that despite initial difficulties and subsequent refusal by the Defendant to accept documents, Amycel's alternative methods of delivery qualified as 'good service.' This ruling establishes a clear precedent for how parties can successfully effect service when standard procedures fail, provided efficiency and fairness are maintained.