Case Reports

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.

In Dyson v Dreame, the UPC Court of Appeal issued its first preliminary reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union. The referral concerns the scope of UPC jurisdiction where a non‑EU manufacturer is sued alongside an EU‑based intermediary acting as an authorised representative, and whether provisional measures may extend to non‑UPC states such as Spain. The decision places important questions about anchor defendants, intermediaries and the UPC’s long‑arm jurisdiction before the CJEU.

In Valeo v Bosch, the Paris Local Division rejected a jurisdictional challenge and confirmed a broad interpretation of Article 33(1)(b) UPCA. The court held that defendants belonging to the same corporate group may be sued together at the local division where one subsidiary is established, without requiring a direct commercial relationship between each defendant and the anchor defendant. It also confirmed that “the same alleged infringement” requires only identity of the infringed patent, even where the disputed products are not strictly identical.

The UPC Court of Appeal has clarified that where jurisdiction is based on Article 7(2) of the Brussels Regulation (place of harm), it is limited to damage occurring within UPC territory. In Keeex v Adobe, the Court set aside the Paris Local Division’s decision to hear infringement claims relating to non‑UPCA states, confirming that broader territorial reach requires satisfaction of the strict conditions under Article 71b(3).

In KeyMed v PR Medical, the Milan Local Division of the Unified Patent Court rejected a preliminary objection seeking to change the language of proceedings from English to Italian under Rule 14.2(b) RoP. Although the defendant was an Italian company and the action was brought before the Italian local division, the court held that the language protection did not apply because the alleged infringement was not confined to Italy.

The Court of Appeal clarified the necessity of formal applications to maintain confidentiality in Unified Patent Court (UPC) proceedings when disclosing ordered information. This ruling arose from a dispute involving patent infringement and confidentiality claims between EOFlow and Insulet.

SummaryOn 12 January 2023, the EDPB published its decision (which was actually made on 5 December 2022) (the "Decision") on the dispute between the Irish Data Protection Commissioner (IDPC) and a...

Teva v Novartis [2022] EWCA Civ 1617The fingolimod saga continues between Teva and Novartis. In a hearing dated 28 November 2022 before Arnold, Nugee, and Floyd LLJ, Teva appealed the decision of...

BackgroundThe Claimant, Vernacare Limited ("Vernacare"), and the Defendant, Moulded Fibre Products Limited ("MFP"), both manufacture and sell washbowls, which are made from moulded paper pulp as used...

Teva v Novartis [2022] EWHC 2847 (Pat)In another patent revocation and infringement counterclaim action between Teva and Novartis, in this instance involving a swallowable tablet version of...

BackgroundPest Control Office Limited (the "EUTM proprietor"), on behalf of Banksy, sought to register the figurative mark of a monkey wearing a sign (figure 1) in a number of categories, including...

BackgroundKigen (UK) Limited is a company which produces software relating to eSIM and iSIMs technology. Thales Dis France SA (also known as Gemalto SA) is a manufacturer of electronic systems and...

A group of influential MPs from the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS)Select Committee has released its Report on the semiconductor industry in the UK.

Heard by Mr Justice Mellor on 16 September 2022 AU Vodka Ltd v NE10 Vodka Ltd & Anor [2022] EWHC 2371 (Ch) (21 September 2022) (bailii.org) Article written by Alona Andrieieva, qualified Ukrainian...

BackgroundAnna Pasternak ("Pasternak") is the Claimant and author of Lara: The Untold Love Story That Inspired Doctor Zhivago ("Lara"). Lara is a non-fiction, historical book that was published in...

Monster Energy appealed a decision refusing Monster's application to register the mark ‘Red Dawg' .At the original hearing Red Bull had opposed registration of the mark and had made out a successful...

Charlotte May KC recently handed down a comparatively rare judgment, for the Patents Court, in respect of a damages enquiry for infringement of Geofabrics' railway related patent by Fiberweb in...

On 22 September 2022, the United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office (IPO) published Enhanced Guidance on Examining Patent Applications Relating to Artificial Intelligence (AI) Inventions (referred...

Powering KipchogeMost people interested in sports will be aware of Project 1.59 – Eluid Kipchoge's 2019 first sub-2 hour marathon. Technology played a significant part; he had an arrow-shaped...

In the recent strike out application heard on 28 July 2022, Waterrower (UK) Limited v Liking Limited (T/A Topiom) [2022] EWHC 2084 (IPEC), David Stone, sitting as deputy high court judge, considered...

As patent attorneys practicing in the healthcare sector, we are encountering more and more inventions which straddle the life and computer science fields.