Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v. Meril GmbH

Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KGvsHimson Engineering Private Limited

1 Milan - Local Division UPC_CFI_240/2023 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 23/07/2024 Order no. ORD_40568/2024 APPLICANT 1) Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG (Applicant) - Leverkuser Strasse 65 - 42897 - Remscheid - DE Represent

Sun Patent TrustvsVivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd., Vivo Tech GmbH, Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL

Vivo Mobile Communication entities (respondents in the appeal) requested the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court to stay the first instance infringement proceedings and/or extend the time limit for filing their Statement of Defense and Counterclaim for Revocation, pending the outcome of a confidentiality appeal and a preliminary objection challenging the UPC's jurisdiction over a FRAND rate determination claim. The Court of Appeal rejected the request, holding that R. 21.2 RoP did not apply because the pending appeal was not against a decision on a preliminary objection, and that as a general rule it is not for the Court of Appeal to decide on stays or time extensions in proceedings pending before the Court of First Instance.

GUALA PACK S.p.A.vsLD Packaging (Foshan) Co. LTD

Guala Pack S.p.A. filed an infringement action against Chinese company LD Packaging (Foshan) Co., Ltd before the Milan Local Division. While the statement of claim was being served via the Hague Convention at the defendant's registered office in China, Guala Pack sought an alternative order for service at LD Packaging's stand at the Interpack trade fair in Düsseldorf. The court granted the application, holding that operating a trade fair stand constitutes a temporary place of business under Rule 271.5(a) RoP, and ordered service by a German bailiff under German national law pursuant to Rule 271.4(b) RoP.

Amgen Inc.vsSanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH

This is a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued on 25 November 2025 concerning appeals in a revocation action and a counterclaim for revocation. The judgment sets out headnotes addressing four key areas of patent law: claim interpretation, added matter, sufficiency, and inventive step. The decision establishes legal principles regarding the interpretation of dependent claims, the inherent therapeutic effectiveness requirement in medical use-format claims, the assessment of added matter as a question of law, the sufficiency test for functionally defined claims, and the framework for assessing inventive step.

Windhager Handels GmbHvsbellissa HAAS GmbH

The plaintiff bellissa HAAS GmbH, sole registered proprietor of European Patent EP 2 223 589 B1 concerning a bed edging with a lockable sheet metal strip, sued Windhager GmbH and two individual defendants for alleged direct, and alternatively indirect, literal infringement of the patent. The patent, valid in Germany, Austria, and Luxembourg, claims an edging for beds and green areas consisting of at least two sheet metal strips with interlocking tongue-and-slot connection ends. The Local Chamber Mannheim issued headnotes clarifying that offering or supplying all components designed for simple assembly at the place of use constitutes direct patent infringement under Art. 25(a) EPGÜ, and that individual sale of a coordinated component likewise constitutes direct infringement when assembly is indicated or otherwise obvious.