Lindal Dispenser GmbH v. Rocep-Lusol Holdings Limited

Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.vsTP-Link Systems Inc., TP-Link Deutschland GmbH, TP-Link Enterprises France SARL, TP-LINK Enterprises Netherlands B.V., TP-Link Italia S.R.L., TP-LINK Enterprises Nordic AB, Lianzhou International Co., Ltd.

This UPC Board of Appeal decision addresses a procedural motion regarding document access in ongoing infringement and revocation proceedings involving Huawei and TP-Link concerning patent EP 3 678 321. TP-Link sought access to confidential documents, which the Local Division partially granted with a deadline. Huawei appealed this order, arguing against the disclosure. The Board of Appeal ultimately granted suspensive effect to Huawei's appeal, effectively halting the document disclosure until further review.

Nokia Technologies OyvsAmazon Europe Core S.à r.l.

This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed an appeal filed by Nokia Technologies Oy against a preliminary procedural order issued in the main infringement case involving Amazon. The core issue was whether the appeal remained viable after the parties reached an out-of-court settlement and subsequently withdrew the original patent infringement claim. The court determined that because the underlying dispute had been resolved, the appeal itself became moot. This ruling reinforces the principle of procedural efficiency within the UPC system, confirming that appeals must be dismissed when the subject matter they address is no longer legally relevant.

Ecovacs Robotics Co., Ltd.vsRoborock (HK) Limited

This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses the strict procedural requirements governing ex parte orders for evidence preservation. Ecovacs sought an inspection order against Roborock, but the Local Division revoked it due to incomplete disclosure by Ecovacs regarding Roborock's direct market activities. The Court of Appeal upheld this revocation, stressing that applicants have a heightened duty under R. 192.3 RoP to disclose all material facts influencing the court’s decision, regardless of whether those facts are later introduced in the main action.

Network System Technologies LLCvsQualcomm Incorporated a.o.

In a significant ruling concerning network technology patents, the Local Division Munich dismissed the infringement claim brought by Network System Technologies LLC against Qualcomm Incorporated. The court found that the Claimant failed to meet its burden of proof regarding patent infringement during the oral hearing. This decision highlights the stringent evidentiary requirements placed on claimants in UPC proceedings, emphasizing that mere dispute is insufficient without conclusive factual substantiation.

Rematec GmbH & Co KGvsEurope Forestry B.V.

This appeal court ruling addresses a procedural dispute regarding the jurisdiction for determining litigation costs following an initial judgment and subsequent appeals. Rematec sought to have its costs application referred back to the Local Division (GEI) based on prior rulings, but the Appeal Court denied this request. The court clarified that cost determination always originates at the GEI under the Rules of Procedure, regardless of whether the application follows a decision from the Appeal Court. This reinforces strict procedural adherence in UPC litigation.