UPC Unfiltered, by Willem Hoyng – UPC decisions week 22, 2026

19 May 2026 (late published)
Local Division Munich, ASC v Xiaomi

UPC_CFI_617/2024; UPC_ CFI_398/2025; UPC_ CFI_1321/2025; UPC_CFI_1340/2026

Joining proceedings

Facts

1. ASC sued the defendants for patent infringement of EP 3 016 454.
2. ASC argued that the defendants used the 4G standard, which required the use of the patent.
3. The defendants denied infringement and filed a counterclaim for revocation.
4. In response to the defence, ASC argued that defendants were also using the 5G standard and that this likewise resulted in infringement of the patent.
5. The panel considered this to be an amendment of the claim and dismissed it. ASC field thereupon a further infringement action for the use of the 5G standard and the defendants filed another counterclaim for revocation.

The Court

1. The Court decides to hear all cases together.
2. The Court states that the longer duration of the first proceedings is outweighed by the need of avoiding conflicting decisions, especially since the claimant does not object and the defendants suffer no disadvantage.

Comment

1. Certainly now that the claimant does not object, the Court is absolutely right to hear the cases together. It avoids conflicting decisions and, more importantly, is far more efficient.
2. It was the claimant who unnecessarily caused these complications by failing to state in its Statement of Claim that the defendants also infringed the patent through their use of 5G. One may therefore ask whether the defendants cannot argue that the claimant’s second case is not admissible on the basis that it constitutes duplicative proceedings and could arguably be regarded as a misuse of proceedings.
3. At least, this conduct can (should?) be taken in consideration when costs are awarded.

20 May 2026 (late published)
Central Division Paris, Ambaflex v X

UPC-CFI-2286/2025

Settlement

Facts

1. Revocation action with respect to EP 2 743 216, commenced on 30 December 2025.
2. On 19 March 2026, the defendant asks an extension of time for filing its defence as parties are negotiating a settlement.
3. On 6 May 2026, the claimant files a request for withdrawal, indicating that parties have reached an agreement and that each party will bear its own costs.

The Court

The Courts decides in accordance with the request.

Comment

1. The case was settled before the end of the written proceedings. However, the claimant did not ask for a reimbursement of court fees.
2. From a Dutch claimant, that is an unexpected generosity towards the Court!

22 May 2026 (late published)
Local Division Mannheim, Eyesmatch v Google 

UPC_CFI_808/2026

Provisional value of dispute

Facts

The claimant sets a low value for the case, which with the result that it paid €7,400 on court fees.

The JR

Considering this amount to be clearly too low (given that the defendant’s products are sold throughout the whole UPC territory), the JR doubled the value and ordered the claimant to pay the higher court fee. 

Comment

1. Trying to keep the value of the litigation low not only reduces the court fees, but also limits your exposure to costs in the event of a loss, since the ceiling for recoverable costs is lower.
2. A very attentive JR (and/or Registry), which quickly picked this up.
   
    

22 May 2026 (late published)
Local Division Paris, Sun v Vivo

UPC_CFI_361/2025

Preparation of oral hearing

The JR

1. The JR sets three days for the oral hearing.
2. The JR orders the parties to submit a summary of all arguments of at most 50 pages.

Comment

1. I assume that, closer to the date of the oral hearing, the JR will circulate a kind of agenda (with time limits?), particularly given that a three-day hearing is exceptional.
2. If you cannot be brief (which is an art), you should at least start each submission with a summary.

26 May 2026
Court of Appeal, ASC v Motorola

UPC_CoA_74/2026

Discretionary review requirements

Facts

1. ASC started infringement proceedings.
2. The Local Division (“LD”) Munich ordered ASC to provide security for costs within 8 weeks after 24 April 2026.
3. ASC filed a request for discretionary review.
4. Motorola asked the JR either to reject the request or give it one additional week to respond.

The JR of the CoA

1. The JR repeats that, for a request for discretionary review to be allowed, it is necessary that the first instance decision be manifestly erroneous, or that it raises a fundamental question of law, or that review is necessary to ensure a consistent application of the law, or to achieve any other objective of discretionary review.
2. ASC did not even argue that the decision was manifestly erroneous.
3. New arguments not presented to the LD are not relevant.
4. The request was rejected.

Comment

1. At the very least, to stand any chance of obtaining discretionary review, you have to invoke one of the grounds referred to by the JR.
2. New arguments that could have been raised at first instance will not be taken into consideration, even if they have been discussed in parallel proceedings.
3. Both points should be known to every representative!
    

26 May 2026
Court of Appeal, Hurom v NUC

UPC_CoA_916/2025

Withdrawal of appeal

Facts

1. Hurom filed an application to withdraw its appeal (following the unfavorable outcome of the appeal proceedings in parallel cases).
2. NUC did not comment within the time limit set by the Court.
3. Hurom requested reimbursement of the (over)paid court fees.

The Court

1. The Court allowed the withdrawal because NUC had not reacted within the prescribed time and ignored the comments later made by NUC in its later filed response to the appeal.
2. The Court explained that, even if NUC’s comments had been taken in consideration (NUC stated that it had an interest in the continuation of the appeal because the LD should not have ruled that each party bear  its own costs, but instead that Hurom had to pay the costs), then the outcome would not have been different because, in the present order, the Court ordered Hurom to pay the costs of both the first instance and appeal.
3. The Court ordered Hurom to pay the costs of the first instance and appeal proceedings and ordered the reimbursement to Hurom of the court fees (50% plus the overpaid fees). 

Comment

1. Hurom had stated in its application that is was prepared to pay the costs of both the first-instance and appeal proceedings in order to prevent NUC from arguing that the appeal should continue, while the outcome would ultimately be that Hurom would have to pay these costs.
2. The Court of Appeal left open the question whether NUC, which was not happy with the cost decision at first instance, would have had to file a cross appeal to change that decision.
3. I would certainly recommend filing a cross appeal in such a situation, because I do not see why if the appeal is unsuccessful, the Court of Appeal would change the costs decision if no cross appeal had been filed. The unsuccessful appeal, in itself, does not provide grounds for changing the costs decision, as it does not alter the decision of the LD.

26 May 2026
Local Division Milan, Pirelli v Yuanxing Rubber

UPC_CFI_770/2024 ; UPC_CFI_556/2025