Guardant Health, Inc. v. Sophia Genetics SA

Headwater Research LLCvsSamsung Electronics GmbH a.o.

This UPC decision addressed a procedural matter concerning a pending revocation counterclaim in an infringement action involving Headwater Research LLC and Samsung Electronics. The Court allowed the Defendants to withdraw their counterclaim because no final appeal had been lodged against prior decisions, which was consented to by the Claimant. Consequently, the proceedings related to the counterclaim were closed, with both parties agreeing to bear their own costs.

NEC CorporationvsShenzhen Transsion Holdings Co, Ltd, et al.

NEC Corporation successfully withdrew its infringement action against Shenzhen Transsion Holdings and several other defendants concerning EP 2 645 714. The court formally closed the proceedings based on the parties' mutual agreement. While the core dispute was settled, the ruling confirmed that all involved parties would bear their own costs, though NEC received a partial reimbursement of its court fees.

Bekaert Binjiang Steel Cord Co. & Ltd.vsSiltronic AG

In this procedural case, the Düsseldorf Local Division of the UPC addressed a dispute over the disclosure of an expert report obtained during evidence preservation measures. The respondent (Siltronic AG) sought to keep certain sensitive commercial data—such as pricing and supplier bank details—confidential. The court ruled that while trade secret protection is paramount, the information relevant to potential infringement claims must be made available, leading to a partial redaction of the expert report before its disclosure to the claimant.

Ortovox Sportartikel GmbHvsMammut Sports Group AG

This UPC decision addressed a motion concerning provisional measures related to an avalanche rescue transceiver patent (EP 3 466 498 B1). The court upheld the existing injunction and security deposit requirement while granting preliminary costs relief to the claimant, Ortovox. The ruling also provided important procedural guidance on patent interpretation and cost allocation in interim proceedings when a main action is anticipated.

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.