Thought Leadership

Provisional and interim injunctions both refer to temporary court orders granted before a full trial, aimed at preserving the status quo or preventing harm. In UK law, “interim injunction” is the standard term, while “provisional injunction” is less common and typically used in international contexts. Both serve the same purpose: urgent relief until the case is fully heard.

It is fair to say that no technology in recent times has created so much excitement and controversy as generative AI, and in particular Large Language Models (LLMs). Generative AI companies and their backers have their sights on generating billions, if not trillions of dollars, directly or indirectly from their models. Models which, in the vast majority of cases, are trained on original works without permission from, or payment to, their authors. The works used for training are primarily obtained by scraping the open web, a uniquely vast repository of publicly accessible knowledge and information, constantly updated to reflect the latest developments in human knowledge and culture.

Potential investors and development partners will expect to see an IP portfolio and strategy which maximises protection for the assets under development.

Semiconductors have always been a critical technology but have grown significantly in strategic importance in recent years. They have become the key building block in developing and existing markets, including quantum computing, edge computing, AI, IoT, automotive, cellular data technology, smartphones, robotics, and many more. The complex designs and innovations that power semiconductor manufacturing are invaluable both to the world’s economy and technological advancement. Consequently, the semiconductor industry has found itself at the centre of geopolitical tensions, especially between the United States and China. It has become a prime target for cyberattacks and intellectual-property (IP) theft. As such, companies operating in this area must be more vigilant in protecting their intellectual assets.

Insulet v. EOFlow UPC_CFI_773/2025 and UPC_CFI 774/2025 (Milan CD), decision of 15 October 2025[1] The dispute began when Insulet sought a provisional injunction against EOFlow to prevent...

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...

In today’s interconnected world, innovation rarely stops at borders. Whether you’re a multinational corporation or a UK-based business with global ambitions, your patent strategy should reflect the reality that your products, services, and competitors operate internationally. Much like a well-travelled backpacker planning a round-the-world adventure, businesses must prepare carefully—mapping out routes, anticipating local rules, and packing what’s essential—to ensure a smooth journey.

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.

We have been keeping a close eye on the decisions coming out of the UPC and as the court starts to establish itself a number of practice points are starting to emerge.

expert v. Seoul Viosys, UPC_CoA_380/2025 Order of 20 August 2025 (ORD_22147/2025)[1] This order from the UPC Court of Appeal clearly states that the Court of Justice of the EU cannot be asked to...

UPC_CFI_318/2025, decision of 5 August 2025 (ORD_34299/2025)[1] In a default judgment issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court, Whale Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd.

On 2 July 2025, the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO) issued its landmark decision in case G 1/23 (Solar Cell Sealing Materials and Solar Cell Module), a ruling that has...

Earlier this month, the UK Government unveiled its latest consultation on Standard Essential Patents, proposing some "practical steps" which they are considering to "create a more balanced system"...

Sichuan Yuanxing Rubber Co., Ltd. and China Council for the Promotion of International Trade, Automotive Sub Council Order of 14 July 2025 (ORD_26742/2025 [1]) This article follows up on the UPC...

Maschio Gaspardo S.p.A. v Spiridonakis Bros GP (UPC_CFI_513/2024 relating to EP1998604) Order of 25 June 2025 (ORD_17812/2025 [1]) This Decision from the Central Division of the Unified Patent Court...