Case Reports
Every UPC, EPO and national court decision our fee earners have written up — now filterable by the same 40+ tags they already use to classify each report, plus the court and industry sector behind it.
Auxiliary claim requests inadmissible and indicative of likely invalidity in applications for provisional measures.
The UPC’s Munich Local Division denied Onward Medical’s bid for a preliminary injunction against Niche Biomedical, finding serious doubts over the novelty of the granted claim of EP 3 421 081 B1 in light of the Yoo prior art. The court also rejected all eight auxiliary claim requests, holding that amended claims cannot be used to establish likely validity in provisional‑measures proceedings. The decision reinforces that interim relief is only available for patents that appear robust in their granted form.
No Declaration of Non-Infringement for Alternative Product
The Unified Patent Court rejected Black Sheep’s request for a declaration of non-infringement (DNI) for an alternative product design. The court found the request inadmissible because HL Display had not asserted infringement against the alternative design, and Black Sheep had not formally sought acknowledgment of non-infringement before filing the counterclaim.
UPC Considers but does not decide exhaustion of rights in relation to consumables
Brita v. Aquashield UPC CFI 248/2024 (Munich LD), decision of 22 August 2025[1] UPC CFI 564/2024 (Munich LD), decision of 16 October 2025[2] Brita sued Aquashield and others for infringement of...
UPC Considers but does not decide exhaustion of rights in relation to consumables
Brita v. Aquashield UPC CFI 248/2024 (Munich LD), decision of 22 August 2025[1] UPC CFI 564/2024 (Munich LD), decision of 16 October 2025[2] Brita sued Aquashield and others for infringement of...
Apple Intervenes in Confidentiality Appeals: UPC Court of Appeal Allows Intervention in Ericsson and Sun Patent Trust Cases
Apple (Intervener) in Ericsson v. AsusTek and Apple (Intervener) in Sun Patent Trust v. Vivo UPC_CoA_631/2025[1], UPC_CoA_632/2025[2], UPC_CoA_755/2025[3], and UPC_CoA_757/2025[4] – Orders of 23...
UPC Infringement Actions: Is Speed Meeting Expectations?
The Unified Patent Court promised simplified and faster patent litigation across Europe. Two years in, we look at whether it’s delivering on that promise. For patent holders and defendants alike, the duration of infringement actions can significantly impact market strategies, investment decisions, and competitive positioning. In this article, we set out an in-depth analysis of how the court’s procedural rules are shaping the pace of litigation. By examining key milestones—from the filing of an infringement action to the issuance of a final judgment—we assess whether the UPC is delivering on its promise of efficiency.
Does an ongoing phase 3 clinical trial and its published protocol suggest that the tested drug will be successful?
Summary A recent EPO Boards of Appeal decision, T 0136/24, has examined the issue of "reasonable expectation of success" when the prior art discloses a protocol to an ongoing phase 3 clinical trial.
Edwards v Meril – The Interaction of Parallel UPC and EPO Proceedings
What happens when a European Patent Office opposition is pending at the same time as a UPC action? And what happens if the EPO and UPC reach differing conclusions on the validity?
Please try updating your search criteria.
The UPC Newsletter
Get expert insights and the top patent stories delivered straight to your inbox.