Newsroom

The Court of Appeal held that setting aside a first-instance decision granting relief subject to recurring penalties generally has retroactive effect. Any penalty fees already paid will be refunded by the Court. The value of proceedings is determined by the interest of the party that brought the action. This is not changed as a result of an appeal. A claimant bringing enforcement proceedings while an appeal is still pending does so at its own risk and may be liable for the defendant’s costs related to the enforcement proceedings.‍

The Court of Appeal held that a statement of appeal that is not electronically signed is not validly lodged under Rule 4.1 RoP, and that this defect cannot be cured after expiry of the non-extendable appeal period. The appeal was therefore rejected as inadmissible, and a late application for re-establishment of rights was itself held to be out of time.

The Local Division Munich invalidated Promosome's licensed mRNA patent over Scripps' codon-optimisation method, then found BioNTech's Comirnaty vaccine would not have infringed the claims even had they been valid.

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.

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.

EIP is delighted to announce that Stuart Malcolm has joined EIP as a Partner, Solicitor on 17 June 2026, strengthening our Commercial practice. Stuart brings more than 25 years of experience as a commercial and intellectual property lawyer, with a career spanning private practice, senior in-house leadership, and the United Kingdom's deep tech and innovation sectors.

EIP has again been named one of Europe's leading patent law firms by the Financial Times. In its 2026 ranking, EIP earned gold in five of the six technology sectors, and silver in the sixth, Materials and Nanotechnology. It is the eighth year running the firm has featured, every year since the ranking began in 2019.