Défiler vers le bas
22 / 09 / 2026

Summary of the three UPC Cases

Organizer: UPCLA (Unified Patent Court Lawyers Association)
Webinar
10:00 AM - 11:00 AM

This September 2025 webinar highlights the Unified Patent Court’s (UPC) commitment to strict procedural efficiency, fairness, and structural clarity across three key decisions. In Total Semiconductor v. Texas Instruments, the Mannheim Local Division affirmed that courts can order substantial security for costs (€600,000) against non-practicing entities lacking financial transparency, while clarifying that only a full court panel, not a judge rapporteur, can deny leave to appeal.

Meanwhile, in MERZ v. Viatris, the Paris Local Division utilized its Rule 9 powers to enforce strict procedural economy in provisional measures, aggressively cutting a disparate 473-page defense submission down to 70 pages to restore equality between the parties.

Finally, in HMD Global v. Fraunhofer, the Hamburg Local Division prioritized fairness and defendant interests by switching the language of proceedings from German to English, establishing that the court will consider the dominant linguistic practices of the underlying technology sector when determining the language of a case.

Decision form

Case 1 : Total Semiconductor v. Texas Instruments
Court

Mannheim Local Division

Date

12 September 2025

Timestamp

00 : 16 – 14 : 29

Core Issue

Whether a non-practicing entity (NPE) should be required to provide security for costs, and whether a judge rapporteur can decide on security for costs and deny leave to appeal

Key Facts
  • Total Semiconductor is a U.S.-based special purpose entity (NPE) funded by third-party investors
  • No operative business; created in 2023 specifically to obtain patent licenses
  • Claimant operated from co-working space on non-permanent basis
Legal Framework
  • Rule 158 ROP: Court may order security for legal costs at any time
  • Rule 220 ROP: Discretionary review to Court of Appeal available
  • Rule 333 ROP: Judge rapporteur decisions reviewed by court panel
Main Ruling
  • Judge rapporteur may decide on security for costs but cannot deny leave to appeal (only panel can)
  • Security of €600,000 confirmed by panel
  • No leave to appeal granted
Significance

Establishes that security for costs can be ordered against NPEs with limited activity and financial transparency concerns; clarifies procedural distinctions between judge rapporteur and panel powers.

Case 2 : MERZ v. Viatris
Court

Paris Local Division

Date

17 September 2025

Timestamp

14 : 33 – 22 : 30

Core Issue

Whether the court can limit the length of written submissions in provisional measures proceedings despite significant disparity in page counts

Key Facts
  • Application for provisional measures (preliminary injunction) filed July 31, 2025, 30 pages
  • Defendant filed 473-page objection
  • Significant disparity created unequal opportunity to defend
Legal Framework
  • Rule 206 ROP: Provisional measures handled as summary proceedings
  • Rule 9 ROP: General power to issue procedural orders
Main Ruling
  • Judge rapporteur ordered defendant to file maximum 70-page summary by September 19, 2025
  • Claimant limited to 40-page reply
  • Specific times scheduled for oral hearing
Significance
  • Demonstrates that UPC can enforce strict procedural economy in provisional measures through Rule 9 authority, reducing submissions by approximately 400 pages ; represents broader power than typical civil procedure systems
Case 3 : HMD Global Oy v. Fraunhofer- Gesellschaft
Court

Hamburg Local Division

Date

8 September 2025

Timestamp

22 : 33 to the end

Core Issue

Whether proceedings can be switched from German to English based on fairness considerations and technology language practices.

Key Facts
  • Infringement action filed in German by German company (Fraunhofer) based on English patent
  • Defendant (HMD) requested language switch to English in early August
  • Most evidence and communications already in English
Legal Framework
  • Article 49 UPCA and Rule 492 ROP : Local division may use official language of hosting member state or patent language
  • Fairness analysis must consider patent language, technology language, and defendant’s interests
Main Ruling
  • Language switched from German to English
  • Court found English is the language of audio processing and decoding technology
  • Request before reply stage allowed early implementation without prejudice
Significance
  • Establishes that language decisions should prioritize defendant’s interests and consider technology-specific linguistic practices
  • Contrasts with earlier Paris decision that refused German-to-English switch

Inscrivez-vous
à notre newsletter

Résumé de la politique de confidentialité

Vous êtes informé que l’utilisation du site internet, telle que notamment pour faire une demande de contact et/ou recevoir la newsletter, donne lieu, pour Loyer & Abello, à la collecte et au traitement automatisé de données à caractère personnel vous concernant, dont l’utilisation est soumise aux dispositions de la loi n° 78-17 du 6 janvier 1978 relative à l’Informatique, aux Fichiers et aux Libertés telle que modifiée (ci-après, « Loi Informatique et Libertés ») et du Règlement européen pour la protection des données n°2016/679 du 27 avril 2016 (ci-après, « RGPD »).

Plus d'informations ici.