Progress Maschinen & Automation AG v. AWM s.r.l.

Sanofi SA as successor of Sanofi Mature IP a.o.vsReddy Pharma SAS

In a significant ruling concerning pharmaceutical patents, the UPC Local Division Munich revoked European Patent 2 493 466. This patent covered a novel anti-tumoral use of cabazitaxel, which was marketed under the brand name JEVTANA by Sanofi. The revocation decision immediately dismissed all associated infringement actions brought by Sanofi against generic competitors like Reddy Pharma SAS. This case underscores the powerful effect of successful revocation proceedings within the UPC framework.

Fujifilm CorporationvsKodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, and Kodak Holding GmbH

In a significant enforcement ruling, the UPC Court of First Instance imposed severe penalties on Kodak entities for non-compliance with a previous final decision regarding EP 3 511 174. Fujifilm successfully argued that despite clear deadlines and notices, the Defendants failed to execute obligations related to information disclosure, destruction, recall, and removal from commerce. The court established a multi-tiered penalty structure, starting with an immediate lump sum payment of €100,000, escalating to daily fines, underscoring the UPC's robust enforcement mechanisms.

F. Hoffmann-La Roche AGvsRubin Medical ApS

In a procedural ruling concerning the protection of confidential information, the Düsseldorf Local Division of the UPC granted an order to classify certain details from a settlement agreement as trade secrets. This decision reinforces the practical application of Article 58 EPC and Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure within the UPC framework. The case highlights how parties can seek judicial protection for sensitive business information during complex litigation, even when the core infringement claims are not addressed.

ApplicantvsDefendant

In this procedural order, the Applicant sought to secure and preserve evidence (Saisie) against the Defendant based on a high probability of patent infringement. The court ultimately rejected the request, finding that the applicant's allegations were too vague and lacked sufficient factual detail to meet the threshold for provisional measures. The ruling also questioned the scope of the requested measures, particularly those requiring active participation from the defendant in setting up complex test environments.

OrthoApnea S.L.vsDe heer [Name redacted]

This UPC decision addressed a complex costs procedure initiated by OrthoApnea S.L. and Vivisol B BV against an individual respondent. The claimants sought to significantly increase the recoverable costs beyond the administrative ceiling of €38,000 due to high actual expenses. The Court partially granted the claim, setting the final cost award at €41,656.64 by applying its discretion within the established ceilings for representation and expertise. This ruling reinforces the importance of adhering to procedural rules regarding costs and the limits set by administrative decisions in UPC proceedings.