Hurom Co., Ltd. v. NUC Electronics Europe GmbH and WARMCOOK

Advanced Bionics AGvsMED-EL ELEKTROMEDIZINISCHE GERÄTE GESELLSCHAFT m.b.H.

This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses the procedural requirements surrounding appeals in revocation actions. It clarifies that a separate court fee is due for an appeal against the main revocation action and any counterclaim for revocation, regardless of how the CFI combines its decisions. Furthermore, the court granted partial reimbursement of appeal fees to both parties following the mutual withdrawal of the underlying actions, setting important precedents on procedural costs.

Panasonic Holdings CorporationvsXiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S, Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L, Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Odiporo GmbH, Shamrock Mobile GmbH

This UPC decision in Mannheim concerns the procedural conclusion of a patent infringement and revocation case involving Panasonic Holdings Corporation against various Xiaomi entities. The parties reached an agreement and subsequently withdrew both the infringement claim and the counterclaim for invalidity. Although the core dispute was settled, the court issued detailed rulings on the reimbursement of court fees based on the final determination of the dispute's value.

KEEEX SASvsADOBE SYSTEMS SOFTWARE IRELAND LIMITED, ADOBE INC., OPEN AI OPCO LLC, OPEN AI IRELAND LTD, TRUEPIC INC., JOINT DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION PROJECTS LLC, COALITION FOR CONTENT PROVENANCE AND AUTHENTICITY (C2PA)

In this procedural case, KEEEX SAS successfully defended against a motion by Adobe and associated parties seeking a default judgment. The dispute centered on whether KEEEX's financial guarantee met the strict requirements set out in the UPC Rules of Procedure (RdP). The Court found that while initial documentation was imperfect, KEEEX demonstrated good faith and diligence by providing proof of funds within the deadline and subsequently submitting the required banking guarantee. This decision reinforces the principle of procedural fairness over rigid formalistic demands.

La Siddhi Consultancy Ltd.vsAthena Pharmaceutiques SAS; Substipharm

In this UPC CFI decision concerning a revocation action, the court addressed the defendants' request for security for costs against the claimant. Despite the claimant asserting SME status and arguing that such an order would restrict access to justice, the Court found the defendant's arguments regarding the claimant's financial vulnerability credible. Consequently, the court ordered the claimant to provide €75,000 in security within six weeks, setting a specific amount while rejecting the defendants' demands for higher sums or faster deadlines.

Centripetal LimitedvsPalo Alto Networks, Inc.

In a significant decision for cybersecurity IP, the UPC Local Division Mannheim revoked European Patent EP 3 652 914 B1. The patent, which covered methods for accelerating cyberanalysis workflows using machine learning and threat logs, was invalidated due to lack of inventive step in its amended claims. This revocation led directly to the dismissal of the concurrent infringement action brought by Centripetal Ltd. against Palo Alto Networks, Inc., highlighting the critical interplay between validity challenges and enforcement actions within the UPC framework.