BITZER Electronics A/S v. Carrier Corporation

Dainese S.p.A.vsALPINESTARS S.p.A., ALPINESTARS RESEARCH S.p.A., OMNIA RETAIL S.R.L., HORIZON MOTO 95 - MAXXESS CERGY, ZUND.STOFF AUGSBURG, MOTOCARD BIKE, S.L.

This procedural order addresses a request by Dainese S.p.A. to protect confidential information related to a settlement agreement reached with one of the defendants (Defendant No. 4). The UPC Local Division affirmed that this document, which details the waiver of claims in the main infringement proceeding, qualifies as protected confidential information under Article 58 UPCA and relevant rules. Consequently, access to the unredacted version was severely restricted, highlighting the court's commitment to balancing transparency with the protection of sensitive commercial dealings.

AdvanSix Resins & Chemicals LLC.vsTroy Chemical Company B.V et al.

In this procedural decision, the UPC Court of First Instance granted the withdrawal of an infringement action brought by AdvanSix Resins & Chemicals LLC against several chemical companies. The withdrawal was based on a mutual agreement between the parties, indicating that the dispute was resolved outside of court. Additionally, the court addressed requests for confidentiality regarding settlement details and ordered the reimbursement of 60% of the initial court fees to the Claimant.

Pfizer Inc.vsGlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA

In a procedural order concerning EP4183412, the UPC Central Division allowed Pfizer (the claimants) and GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA (the defendant) to withdraw their respective revocation action and counterclaim. The parties reached an agreement that rendered the patent amendment applications moot. This case highlights how mutual consent can lead to the swift closure of complex litigation in the UPC, even when significant value is at stake.

Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing OyvsMicrosoft Corporation

This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed an application for suspensive effect filed by Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy against a cost award granted in favor of Microsoft Corporation. The original dispute involved an infringement action concerning EP 2 671 173, which was ultimately dismissed by default. Although the costs were substantial (€350k), the Court of Appeal ruled that Suinno failed to meet the high threshold required to suspend enforcement of the cost decision. This reinforces the principle that appeals generally lack suspensive effect unless exceptional circumstances are proven.

Komax Holding AGvsJiangsu BOZHIWANG Automation Equipment Co., Ltd.

Komax Holding AG sought provisional measures to inspect the respondent's automated cable processing machine, 'BZW-3005,' at a trade fair in Munich, alleging potential infringement of EP 3 024 099 B1. The claimant argued that prior attempts to examine the machine were impossible due to security and access restrictions. However, the Local Division ultimately rejected the application for inspection and evidence preservation. This decision highlights the stringent procedural hurdles required to obtain urgent investigative measures within the UPC framework.