Motorola Mobility LLC v. ASUSTek Computer Inc; ASUS Computer GmbH; ASUSTEK (UK) LIMITED

Headwater Research LLCvsSamsung Electronics France S.A.S, Samsung Electronics GmbH, Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.

This procedural order in the Headwater v. Samsung case sets the stage for a complex UPC trial concerning patent infringement and revocation of EP 2 391 947. The Court confirmed the oral hearing date and formally established the financial scope of the dispute, valuing the claim at €2 million and the counterclaim at €3 million. While settlement discussions were noted, the court maintained strict procedural control over evidence and arguments, particularly regarding late-filed documents and invalidity attacks.

TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR, LLCvsTexas Instruments Incorporation; Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH; Texas Instruments EMEA Sales GmbH

In this procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division, TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC sought permission to file a further written submission, arguing that Defendants had raised complex and new technical points. The Court denied the request, emphasizing that parties must provide detailed substantiation when requesting deviations from the standard written procedure framework (R. 12 RoP). This decision reinforces the need for precision in procedural filings within the UPC.

10x Genomics, Inc.vsCurio Bioscience Inc.

In this procedural order concerning enforcement security, the UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf ruled in favor of 10x Genomics, Inc. The Applicant had initially deposited EUR 2 million to secure a preliminary injunction but subsequently obtained and provided an equivalent bank guarantee. The Court found that the Applicant had a legitimate interest in exchanging the deposit for the bank guarantee due to logistical and economic reasons. Consequently, the Court ordered the repayment of the original security deposit.

ICPillar LLCvsARM Limited et al.

This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses procedural motions concerning an appeal against a security for costs order. ICPillar LLC sought suspensive effect on the order requiring them to deposit €400,000 and requested the appeal be expedited. The Court ultimately rejected both requests, emphasizing that while Article 74 UPCA provides grounds for granting suspensive effect, such relief must be exceptional. The ruling reinforces the principle that procedural appeals should not unduly hinder proceedings before the Court of First Instance.

Institute of Professional Representatives before the European Patent OfficevsSuinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy

This UPC decision addressed an application by the Institute of Professional Representatives before the European Patent Office seeking access to a case file. The Court ruled that while public access is generally the rule, the paramount interest in maintaining the integrity and impartiality of ongoing proceedings outweighs the applicant's general interest in accessing specific documents. The ruling emphasizes that for purely legal issues, knowledge derived from existing court orders or pending appeals may suffice, negating the need for confidential file inspection.