Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v. Meril Lifesciences PVT Limited; Meril GmbH; Smis International OÜ; Sormedica UAB

Koninklijke Philips N.V.vsBelkin Limited, Belkin GmbH, Belkin International, Inc.

This UPC Board of Appeal decision addressed a procedural motion regarding cost determination following an earlier ruling. Koninklijke Philips N.V. sought to enforce a specific cost allocation, but subsequently withdrew its application due to an administrative error. The court accepted this withdrawal, effectively closing the costs procedure without altering the underlying substantive dispute or the initial cost split.

Expert e-Commerce GmbHvsSeoul Viosys Co., Ltd.

In a significant decision regarding patent scope, the UPC Board of Appeal invalidated key claims of EP 3 926 698. The core finding centered on the doctrine of impermissible expansion, holding that a claim cannot extend beyond what was clearly and unambiguously disclosed in the original application documents. This ruling reinforces strict interpretation requirements for divisional applications, emphasizing that the scope must be traceable to both the initial filing and the parent PCT application. For patent practitioners, this case serves as a strong reminder of the critical importance of precise drafting and disclosure during the prosecution phase.

Dainese S.p.A.vsAlpinestars S.p.A., Alpinestars Research S.p.A., Motocard Bike S.l.

This UPC Court of Appeal decision concerns a procedural request for discretionary review filed by the defendants (Alpinestars) against an order from the Local Division. The core issue was whether the appeal remained necessary after the Local Division subsequently amended its original ruling to grant leave to appeal. The Court ruled that since the first instance proceedings evolved and rendered the appeal obsolete, the request could be withdrawn. This case highlights the dynamic nature of UPC litigation and how procedural developments can impact appellate remedies.

bioMérieux UK Limited, bioMérieux Benelux BV, bioMérieux SA, bioMérieux Deutschland GmbH, bioMérieux Portugal, Lda., bioMérieux Italia S.p.A., bioMérieux Austria GmbHvsLabrador Diagnostics LLC

This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed procedural applications concerning a patent dispute involving bioMérieux and Labrador Diagnostics. The Appellants sought to stay the proceedings based on pending EPO opposition actions and requested an extension of their appeal deadline to align with potential infringement appeals. The court firmly rejected both requests, reiterating the principle that extensions must be exceptional and noting that existing UPC rules provide efficient mechanisms for aligning parallel proceedings.

Sun Patent TrustvsVivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd.

This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses the scope and proportionality of confidentiality measures in complex patent litigation involving FRAND licensing. The court ruled on access rights for internal staff, affirming that employees are generally essential for a party's effective representation, even if it slightly compromises strict confidentiality regimes. Crucially, the ruling also provided a mechanism to protect third parties by imposing temporary bars on negotiations when confidential license data is involved.