Magna International France, SARL, Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG, Magna PT s.r.o. v. Valeo Electrification

BioNTech Innovative Manufacturing Services GmbH , Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium NV , Pfizer SAS, BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH , Pfizer AB , BioNTech Manufacturing Marburg GmbH , BioNTech Europe GmbH , Pfizer, Inc. , BioNTech SEvsPromosome LLC

This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning a patent infringement action brought by Promosome LLC against multiple BioNTech and Pfizer entities regarding European patent EP 2 401 365. Promosome applied under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure for the protection of confidential information contained in Exhibits VB 4a and VB 4b, which relate to an underlying license agreement and its amendment. The Court granted the application, classifying the information as confidential and restricting access to specifically identified representatives and natural persons on behalf of the Defendants.

Dolby International ABvsCPYou B.V., Acer Italy s.r.l.

This procedural order concerns a panel review of a Judge-Rapporteur's order of 1 May 2026 regarding the admissibility of a counterclaim for rate-setting directed against an intervener, Vectis IP Ltd., who had intervened in support of the claimant Dolby International AB in a patent infringement action concerning EP3079153. The panel denied the review, holding that under Rule 315.4 RoP an intervener is treated as a party and may therefore be the target of a counterclaim, particularly given the principle of equal treatment. The panel further noted that the Court could rely on Rule 305 RoP to add Vectis as a proper party if necessary, and that the substantive objections raised by Dolby and Vectis (lack of standing, no dominant market position, no FRAND declaration) were matters of substance rather than admissibility.

Gilead Sciences, Inc.vsAcademy of Military Medical Sciences

This Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance (Milan Central Division) addressed a cost decision following revocation proceedings concerning European Patent No. EP3854403, owned by the Academy of Military Medical Sciences (AMMS). Gilead Sciences, Inc., as the successful party in the revocation proceedings, sought EUR 800,000 in recoverable legal costs, which AMMS did not dispute in amount but requested be stayed pending appeal. The Court rejected AMMS's requests for a stay and for payment by instalments, ordering AMMS to pay the full amount within four weeks of service.

Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing OyvsMicrosoft Corporation

The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued a decision by default against Suinno, the appellant and patent proprietor, for its failure to provide security for costs (EUR 600,000) ordered in the appeal proceedings concerning the revocation of EP 2 671 173. The Court held that R. 355.2 RoP does not apply when a default decision is requested against the appellant, as the appellant is regarded as the claimant in appeal proceedings. The appeal was dismissed and Suinno was ordered to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings.

VALEO SYSTEMES D’ESSUYAGEvsRespondent

This is a procedural order of the Unified Patent Court's Local Division of Paris concerning patent infringement action UPC_CFI_1963/2025 (with related case UPC_CFI_1247/2026). Valeo Systèmes d'Essuyage, holder of EP4144599, sought to limit its infringement claims against six Bosch group entities by excluding certain APX-series products, withdrawing claims against Belgian and German territories, and withdrawing all claims against Defendant 5 (BOSCH PRODUKTIE). The judge-rapporteur authorized the