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

F. Hoffmann-La Roche AGvsRubin Medical ApS

In a case involving Roche and Tandem Diabetes Care against Rubin Medical, the UPC Local Chamber of Düsseldorf issued an important procedural order concerning trade secret protection. The court successfully granted the request to classify specific documents as confidential under Article 58 EPC. This ruling sets strict boundaries on who can access sensitive information during the ongoing infringement proceedings, emphasizing the importance of confidentiality protocols in high-stakes biotech litigation.

Atlas Global Technologies GmbHvsVantiva SA

In a procedural decision, the Düsseldorf Local Division accepted the withdrawal of an infringement claim brought by Atlas Global Technologies GmbH against Vantiva SA and its affiliates. Concurrently, the counterclaim seeking revocation of EP 3186937 was also withdrawn. The court formally terminated both proceedings based on the parties' mutual agreement. This case highlights how procedural agreements between litigants can lead to the early conclusion of complex UPC actions.

Edwards Lifesciences CorporationvsMeril Lifesciences PVT Limited; Meril GmbH; Smis International OÜ; Sormedica UAB

This procedural order addressed a request by an applicant (a member of the public/investor) seeking access to confidential pleadings and evidence in several UPC cases. The Court ultimately denied this access, emphasizing that while transparency is important, the integrity of ongoing civil litigation must be protected. The ruling clarified that merely being a competitor or investor is insufficient grounds for disclosure when the core patent information is already public.

Amgen N.V.vsRegeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc.

This UPC Court of Appeal decision concerns the withdrawal of an appeal filed by Amgen against a prior ruling in infringement proceedings. The case, involving major biotech players like Regeneron and Sanofi, was ultimately withdrawn because the parties reached an out-of-court settlement. Although the court permitted the procedural withdrawal, it strictly denied Amgen's request for reimbursement of court fees, highlighting the precise application of UPC Rules of Procedure regarding timing and fee recovery.

NJOY Netherlands B.V.vsJuul Labs International, Inc.

In a procedural decision, the UPC Court of Appeal allowed Juul Labs International, Inc. to withdraw its appeal against the revocation of EP 3 498 115. This was possible because the opposing party, NJOY Netherlands B.V., consented to the withdrawal. While the proceedings were closed, the court upheld the general principle that the withdrawing appellant is considered unsuccessful and must cover the costs incurred by the successful party (NJOY) for the appeal stage.