Newsroom

Proceedings before the UPC Central Division must be conducted in the language in which the patent was granted. There is no legal basis to change that language. In a revocation action concerning a German-language patent, the Paris Central Division rejected a request to switch the language of proceedings to English, and also rejected a subsidiary request to allow written submissions in English and hold the hearing in English, holding that Article 49(6) UPCA permits no derogation and reflects a deliberate legislative choice.

This appeal judgment clarifies that Rule 190 orders to produce evidence require three cumulative conditions: specificity, necessity and proportionality, and cannot be used for fishing expeditions. The Court of Appeal confirmed that first instance judges enjoy a broad margin of discretion when assessing such requests, and upheld the order requiring production of two fabric samples for ballistic testing. Both the appeal and the cross-appeal were dismissed.

The Court of Appeal provided guidance on their approach to assessing added subject matter, highlighting that the technical effect underlying the invention and how the claimed and unclaimed features contribute thereto is central to the analysis.

In T 0903/24, the EPO Board of Appeal relied on reference numerals to interpret disputed claim language, rejecting the patentee's narrower reading and revoking novelty over prior art D2 for the main request.

A High Court decision highlighting the consequences of inadequate disclosure searches under PD57AD and reaffirming that costs orders are final, even where later failures come to light.

The High Court’s judgment in Banham v Rogers provides a stark warning for SMEs defending intellectual property claims without professional advice. Acting as a litigant in person, the defendant misunderstood key technical issues, failed to comply with procedural requirements, and mismanaged correspondence and evidence. These cumulative errors left the court with no realistic defence to consider, leading to summary judgment and public reputational damage. The case underlines the importance of obtaining specialist IP advice at an early stage to avoid avoidable and compounding litigation risks.

Chambers recognised EIP for its patent litigation work and its strength in disputes concerning FRAND licensing and standard essential patents.

EIP has retained its Tier 1 ranking in PATMA: Patents and its Tier 2 ranking in IP: Patents (contentious and non-contentious) in the Legal 500 UK 2027 guide. In addition, Gary Moss was inducted into the Hall of Fame in IP: Patents.

Christof Höhne, Darren Smyth, Heather McCann, James Seymour, and Sebastian Fuchs have all been named in this year's list, each recognised for their own approach to building patent value for clients.