Case Reports

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.

The Court of Appeal gave guidance on defending dependent claims, relying on EPO central limitation during UPC proceedings, and pleading revocation attacks. It also emphasised that inventive-step combinations require a proper pointer to the secondary reference.

GC Aesthetics, Avient, IQIP and Dall Energy: four 2026 UPC rulings reveal how courts weigh proportionality, confidentiality and timing before ordering a party to produce evidence under Rule 190.

The UPC's Düsseldorf Local Division found that Wessper's cartridges indirectly infringed Brita's patent, and that a narrower claim combination can turn a consumable into an essential element.

In Ericsson v ASUSTeK, the Milan Local Division refused a provisional measures application filed 21 months into the case, finding continuing infringement and rising losses alone do not establish urgency.

The UPC Local Division Milan revoked Cardo's provisional injunction against Reso, ruling its helmet intercom products fall outside the scope of EP4240194, neither literally nor by equivalence.

The Hamburg Local Division let Nixu pursue US-based Infoblox in the UPC for Germany, France and Finland, but threw out the UK claim. To reach a non-UPC territory through an anchor defendant, a claimant must plead joint infringement there.

The Helsinki Local Division found AIM's TV-advertising patent valid but not infringed by TGI, and with no Court of Appeal ruling on equivalence yet, adopted the four-step test both sides put forward, the UPC following the parties' lead.

In Agathon v Intercom, the UPC's Milan Local Division confirmed that statements made during EPO prosecution are not binding but can offer low-weight guidance on the skilled person's view — here narrowing 'abuts' against the patentee.

In Otec v Steros, the UPC's Dusseldorf Local Division revoked an ex parte inspection order after the applicant failed to sue on the merits in time, ordering all preserved evidence returned and destroyed.

On 2 June 2026 the UPC Court of Appeal overturned the Mannheim Local Division's infringement findings against Kodak in both Germany and the UK, on a prior user right in Germany, and on lack of defendant liability in the UK, while upholding the validity of EP 3511174 as amended and laying down a structured framework for exercising jurisdiction over non-EU designations.

These Decisions from the Local Division of the Unified Patent Court in Milan relate to EP2519412 and EP3519207. The Applicant, Pirelli Tyre S.P.A. ("Pirelli") brought two separate infringement actions following respective seizure orders against Tianjin Kingtyre Group Co., Ltd ("Kingtyre") and Sichuan Yuanxing Rubber Co., Ltd. ("SYR"), in view of the exhibition of allegedly infringing products by the defendants at the "International Motorcycle Exhibition" ("EICMA") between 5 and 10 November 2024.

WIRPLAST v VILPE (UPC Munich, April 2026): a roof-fan disclosure was a fair starting point, but the patent for a through-roof ventilation pipe with a spirit level survived; the skilled person would not have leaped.

The UPC Court of Appeal ruled that it lacks jurisdiction to assess costs applications and confirmed they must be filed at the Court of First Instance, rejecting a transfer request in Rematec v Europe Forestry.

In Emporia v Seoul Viosys, the UPC Central Division confirmed that the revocation of an independent claim does not automatically affect the validity of unchallenged claims. The decision underscores the importance of challenging all relevant claims where full patent revocation is sought.

His Honour Judge Hacon has found that Prevayl's patent for a smart bra was invalid for obviousness over two pieces of prior art. However, had the patent been valid, Whoop would be indirectly...

In T 0458/22 (which has a "B" distribution code indicating it is significant enough to be distributed to all Members of the EPO's Technical Boards of Appeal), the Board of Appeal appears to have gone...

Dainese S.p.A. v. Alpinestars S.p.A., Alpinestars Research S.p.A., Omnia Retail S.r.l., Horizon Moto 95 – Maxxess Cergy, Zund.Stoff Augsburg/Ulrich Herpich E.K., Motocard Bike S.I.

A 163-page judgment for Pfizer Limited v. GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals S.A. & Anor [2024] EWHC 2523 was handed down on 7 October 2024 by Mr Justice Mellor.

i-mop GmbH v ARCORA International GmbH (UPC_CFI_193/2024) Order dated 11 October 2024 (ORD_47439/2024) concerning EP 3 760 094 B1 The patent in suit EP 3 760 094 B1 relates to a floor cleaning device.

An interesting "B" decision from Board 3.5.05 was published yesterday relating to the generation of new data from medical measurements being relied on for a technical effect.

Ballinno B.V. v UEFA, Kinexon GmbH and Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH UPC_CFI_151/2024 Order of 3 June 2024 ORD_39782/2024[1] Whilst thoughts of Euro '24 may be starting to slip into the past...

Trailblazing developments in Artificial Intelligence have left a litany of complex legal cases in their wake, and judges are tasked with deciding how old law should be interpreted against the...

Europe's Chips Joint Undertaking has bolstered its support for the semiconductor industry by announcing three funding calls with a combined value of up to €325M.

Recent cases from the US Federal Circuit and the EPO Boards of Appeal highlight how the two jurisdictions have reached strict, and completely opposite, approaches to interpreting claims in light of...

The Court of Appeal announced at the conclusion of the hearing, on 16 May 2024, that Bayer's appeal in the rivaroxaban litigation against a finding of invalidity following challenges by a number of...

The EIP team was pleased to receive the BoA Decision on T 0197/22 earlier this month, providing the reasons for revocation of Translate Bio's EP 3318248 B1 at the oral proceedings held in March,...

A recent decision from a Technical Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office provides clarity as to how "intermediate generalisations" are assessed for added matter.

On 1 March 2024, the European Patent Office (EPO) updated its Guidelines for Examination regarding AI inventions. This included new wording relating to the sufficient disclosure of training data.

Supponor Ltd v AIM Sport Development AG [2024] EWCA Civ 396 In a judgment handed down on 23 April 2024, the Court of Appeal dismissed Supponor's appeal against the decision of Meade J in the High...