Case Reports

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.

In Rematec v Europe Forestry, the UPC Court of Appeal overturned the Mannheim Local Division’s revocation of the patent and, applying Article 75(1) UPCA, issued a final decision on both validity and infringement despite no infringement finding at first instance. The Court adopted a narrower, description‑led approach to claim interpretation, confirmed the patent’s validity, found infringement, and granted final remedies without referring the case back to the Court of First Instance.

In Syntorr v Arthrex, the UPC Court of Appeal clarified that while litigation insurance is not itself a form of security under Rule 158 RoP, it is a relevant factor when deciding whether security for costs should be ordered at all. By failing to consider the claimant’s insurance policy, the Munich Local Division wrongly exercised its discretion. The Court set aside the €2 million security order and confirmed that insurance can mitigate concerns about cost recoverability.

In Fives v REEL, the Hamburg Local Division of the UPC dismissed a standalone damages action despite prior findings of infringement. Although the UPC was competent to assess damages, the court held that national law applied because the relevant events pre‑dated the UPC’s entry into force. Applying German law, the court found that the claimant had not proven causation or lost profit, highlighting the demanding evidentiary burden for price‑reduction damages claims and the importance of substantiating counterfactual tender outcomes.

The ongoing dispute between Apple and Samsung over Apple's Registered Community Designs for its iPad has now entered the UK courts.Darren Smyth's latest IPKat post relates to a decision of Mr Justice...

A Polish law which allowed the sale of unapproved drugs which were cheaper than those approved has been declared contrary to EU law.The decision by the Court of Justice of the European Union is...

In today's IPKat, Darren Smyth analyses the decision in Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc, Bayer Pharma AG v Genentech Inc, a case which started as an action for a declaration of invalidity of...

In a decision on 22 March in Teva and ors v AstraZeneca concerning a patent on a sustained release formulation of an anti-psychotic drug, Mr Justice Arnold revoked the patent due to obviousness.

Chancellor George Osborne confirmed in his 2012 Budget that the proposed Patent Box scheme will go ahead.When fully phased in, the rate of Corporation Tax on profits attributed to patents will be 10%.

The European Patent Office (EPO) has published the draft version of revised Guidelines for Examination 2012 online.Partner Darren Smyth casts his eye over the draft version in his latest IPKat post.

The first compulsory licence of an Indian patent since the TRIPS regime was implemented in India has been awarded. Although the licence relates to a pharmaceutical product, the grounds on which the...

Following on from his IPKat post about India granting its first compulsory licence, Darren Smyth explores what limitations the TRIPS agreement puts on compulsory licensing in his latest blog.

The first compulsory licence has been granted by the Controller of Patents Mumbai.The application concerns the anti-cancer drug Sorafenib, a patented drug owned by Bayer Corporation.

The subject of today's IPKat post - The Cost of Knowledge - by Darren Smyth concerns a campaign against Elsevier, the publisher of academic journals.

Recent decisions of the Boards of Appeal of the EPO are now updated continuously on the EPO website.In today's IPKat blog, Darren Smyth highlights some noteworthy cases from the first two months of...

SummaryThe Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has confirmed that owning a Community registered design (CRD) does not provide a defence to an infringement action relating to earlier CRDs.

The European Patent Office (EPO) has launched a new patent translation service which uses Google's Translate technology.Reported by partner Darren Smyth via his IPKat blog, the service initially...

Multiple rulings of the CJEU on the SPC Regulation fail to answer questions posed by the national courts, result in greater confusion and give rise to a need for yet more references.

The issues of colour and composition form the basis of the questions referred to the CJEU by the Court of Appeal in this case of Specsavers International Healthcare & ors v Asda Stores Ltd.