UERAN Technology LLC v. Xiaomi Corporation, Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S., Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L.

Order of the President of the Court of Appeal concerning a petition for review of a decision by the Registrar (APL_18313/2025 UPC_CoA_347/2025)vsEx Parte

The President of the Court of Appeal rejected an applicant's petition for review of a Registrar's decision denying his application to be entered on the list of representatives before the Unified Patent Court. The applicant had completed a CEIPI course on patent litigation in 2022 but filed his registration application on 21 February 2025, after the expiry of the one-year transitional period under Rule 12.1 of the EPLC Rules. The Court held that the one-year transitional period does not violate the principles of equality and proportionality, and that the applicant's health-related circumstances did not justify re-establishment of rights.

Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson and Ericsson GmbHvsMotorola Mobility LLC

The Local Division Munich allowed a preliminary objection filed by Motorola Mobility LLC against a second counterclaim for revocation of EP 3 780 758 brought by Ericsson. The court held that a preliminary objection under Rule 19 RoP can be raised against a counterclaim for revocation, and that Article 33(2) UPCA applies a fortiori when the same parties bring the same action twice before the same division, resulting in the second counterclaim being rejected as inadmissible due to lis pendens.

EOFLOW Co., Ltd.vsInsulet Corporation

This case before the Milan Central Division of the Unified Patent Court concerned parallel revocation and infringement proceedings regarding European patent EP4201327 (unitary effect EP4201327C0) owned by Insulet Corporation, relating to fluid delivery devices for insulin pumps. EOFLOW sought revocation of the patent for lack of novelty and inventive step, while Insulet counterclaimed for infringement based on EOFLOW's EOPatch/GlucoMen Day Pump product. The Court revoked the patent in its entirety for lack of novelty and inventive step, and issued a decision by default against EOFLOW on the infringement counterclaim due to its failure to file a Reply, ordering injunctive relief, information disclosure, product recall, and damages with penalty payments.

AdvanSix Resins & Chemicals LLCvsKrahn Chemie Benelux BV (Review of Preservation of Evidence Order)

AdvanSix Resins & Chemicals LLC obtained an ex parte order for preservation of evidence and inspection of premises against Krahn Chemie Benelux BV and two Italian defendants, alleging indirect infringement of EP3286270 relating to an anti-skinning composition comprising at least 98 wt% of 2-pentanone oxime. Krahn filed a review of the ex parte order under R.197.3 RoP, seeking revocation of the order, return of seized evidence, and provision of security. The Court dismissed Krahn's requests to revoke the order but ordered that the Technical Report NL be released to AdvanSix only upon provision of a EUR 50,000 security deposit.

STADAPHARM GmbHvsAccord Healthcare B.V., Accord Healthcare S.L.U., Accord Healthcare Limited, Novartis AG

STADAPHARM GmbH applied under Rule 262.1(b) RoP to access written pleadings and evidence filed in main proceedings (UPC_CFI_698/2024) between Accord Healthcare companies and Novartis AG concerning a Declaration of Non-Infringement action regarding EP2501384 (nilotinib). The Milan Central Division dismissed STADAPHARM's request, holding that the general interest of justice and integrity of the proceedings outweighed STADAPHARM's interest in accessing the documents, particularly given that Novartis had not yet filed any submissions and that granting access could interfere with Novartis's free legal defense in parallel German preliminary injunction proceedings.