Sanofi SA (successor of Sanofi Mature IP), Sanofi Winthrop Industrie, Sanofi-Aventis GmbH, Sanofi Belgium, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi S.r.l., Sanofi B.V., Sanofi - Produtos Farmaceuticos Lda, Sanofi AB, Sanofi A/S 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

Sun Patent TrustvsVivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd.

This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed an application for suspensive effect concerning a confidential information order issued by the Court of First Instance. Sun Patent Trust sought to halt the disclosure of highly confidential information (HCI) to designated employees of Vivo, arguing that continued access would render its appeal pointless. The Court ultimately rejected this request, finding that the appeal would not become devoid of purpose and that the claimant failed to establish a risk of irreparable harm.

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

This UPC decision addressed a procedural request concerning the composition of the confidentiality club in an ongoing infringement action involving Fujifilm and Kodak. The court ruled that while the claimant could not fully expand its access authorizations, it was granted permission to replace certain members with others whose involvement did not pose an undue risk to the defendants' confidential information. This highlights the court's careful balancing act when managing procedural aspects of sensitive IP litigation.

Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KGvsVibrantz GmbH

This UPC procedural order addressed a request by Heraeus Electronics to extend its response deadline, citing the vacation of key members of its Confidentiality Club and delays in accessing confidential documents. The court corrected the start date for Heraeus's deadlines based on when access was actually granted (March 18, 2025). However, the court ultimately denied the request for further extensions, stating that personal vacations do not affect procedural timelines.

Meril Life Sciences Pvt LtdvsSWAT Medical AB

This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses critical procedural issues regarding representation before the court. The ruling firmly establishes that self-representation is invalid for lawyers and European Patent Attorneys who are parties to the proceedings. Additionally, it reinforces the principle that corporate representatives holding high-level management roles cannot represent their companies due to independence requirements. The court provided a temporary grace period of 14 days for the involved parties to rectify these procedural defects by appointing proper legal counsel.

Centripetal Ltd.vsPalo Alto Networks, Inc.

In this procedural order, the UPC granted an extension of time to Palo Alto Networks, Inc., in a patent infringement action brought by Centripetal Ltd. The court recognized that unforeseen global events had created significant logistical obstacles for the defendant's technical team and key personnel. This decision underscores the court's willingness to balance strict adherence to procedural timelines with practical realities faced by parties during exceptional circumstances.