Sanofi A/S, Sanofi - Produtos Farmaceuticos Lda, Sanofi B.V., Sanofi Belgium, Sanofi Winthrop Industrie, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi-Aventis France, Sanofi-Aventis GmbH, Sanofi S.r.l., Sanofi AB v. Accord Healthcare S.L.U., Accord Healthcare GmbH (AT), Accord Healthcare BV, Accord Healthcare GmbH (DE), Accord Healthcare Italia Srl, Accord Healthcare B.V., Accord Healthcare, Unipessoal Lda., Accord Healthcare AB, STADAPHARM GmbH, STADA Arzneimittel AG, STADA Nordic ApS, Reddy Pharma SAS, betapharm Arzneimittel GmbH, Dr Reddy's Srl, Zentiva France, Zentiva Pharma GmbH, Zentiva, k.s.

air up group GmbHvsGuangzhou Aiyun Yanwu Technology Co., Ltd.

In this UPC case concerning an application for preliminary measures, the Court addressed a critical procedural hurdle: service of documents on a defendant domiciled in China. Despite extensive efforts—including formal and informal attempts under the Hague Service Convention—the court found that traditional service methods had failed to yield a certificate of delivery. The judge ruled that these unsuccessful steps constituted 'good service' under Rule 275.2 RoP, effectively allowing the proceedings to move forward despite the lack of confirmed receipt by the defendant.

Headwater Research LLCvsMotorola Mobility LLC, Motorola Mobility Germany GmbH, Motorola Mobility International Sales LLC, Digital River Ireland, Ltd.

This decision from the Munich Local Division addresses jurisdictional objections raised by Motorola entities in a patent infringement case brought by Headwater Research LLC concerning wireless mobile devices. The court dismissed these objections, affirming its jurisdiction under the UPC Agreement. Crucially, the ruling clarifies the scope of Article 33(1)(b) EPCG, limiting its application and confirming that the main infringement proceedings will proceed to trial. This decision provides important guidance on how jurisdictional rules are interpreted in complex multi-defendant cases within the UPC.

Samsung Electronics Co., LtdvsZTE Deutschland GmbH, ZTE France SASU, ZTE Netherlands B.V.

In a procedural order concerning an infringement action, the UPC Local Division in Mannheim addressed the varying service dates of three related ZTE entities. The court ruled that to ensure procedural fairness and efficiency, all parties agreed to harmonize the deadlines for submitting defenses and revocation counterclaims. This decision establishes a uniform timeline across the group defendants, streamlining the ongoing litigation.

Arbutus Biopharma CorporationvsModerna, Inc.

In a complex biotech patent dispute involving Arbutus Biopharma Corporation and numerous Moderna entities, the UPC issued a procedural order in June 2025. The defendants sought to challenge prior case management orders and preliminary objections raised by the claimants across two infringement actions (UPC_CFI_191/2025 and UPC_CFI_192/2025). The court granted the claimants a week to respond, indicating that the core substantive issues remain pending while procedural challenges are addressed.

TIRU SASvsMAGUIN SAS

This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses an appeal challenging an initial ex parte order for evidence preservation concerning a waste incineration patent (EP 3 178 578). The court provided important guidance on the scope of judicial review during evidence gathering, emphasizing that judges ordering evidence do not need to assess patent validity or require disclosure of all known prior art. Ultimately, the appeal by MAGUIN was rejected as they failed to meet the burden of proving why their specific prior art should have been disclosed.