Case Reports

Hurom v. NUC UPC-CFI_162/2024 LD Mannheim Decision of 2 October 2025

The UPC’s Munich Local Division denied Onward Medical’s bid for a preliminary injunction against Niche Biomedical, finding serious doubts over the novelty of the granted claim of EP 3 421 081 B1 in light of the Yoo prior art. The court also rejected all eight auxiliary claim requests, holding that amended claims cannot be used to establish likely validity in provisional‑measures proceedings. The decision reinforces that interim relief is only available for patents that appear robust in their granted form.

The Unified Patent Court rejected Black Sheep’s request for a declaration of non-infringement (DNI) for an alternative product design. The court found the request inadmissible because HL Display had not asserted infringement against the alternative design, and Black Sheep had not formally sought acknowledgment of non-infringement before filing the counterclaim.

Kodak v. Fujifilm (UPC CoA 699/2025, order of 14 October 2025)[1] According to Art. 82(2) UPCA and Rule 354.3 RoP, a party may be sanctioned with a recurring penalty payment, payable to the UPC, if...

Insulet v. EOFlow UPC_CFI_773/2025 and UPC_CFI 774/2025 (Milan CD), decision of 15 October 2025[1] The dispute began when Insulet sought a provisional injunction against EOFlow to prevent...

Brita v. Aquashield UPC CFI 248/2024 (Munich LD), decision of 22 August 2025[1] UPC CFI 564/2024 (Munich LD), decision of 16 October 2025[2] Brita sued Aquashield and others for infringement of...

Apple (Intervener) in Ericsson v. AsusTek and Apple (Intervener) in Sun Patent Trust v. Vivo UPC_CoA_631/2025[1], UPC_CoA_632/2025[2], UPC_CoA_755/2025[3], and UPC_CoA_757/2025[4] – Orders of 23...

The Unified Patent Court promised simplified and faster patent litigation across Europe. Two years in, we look at whether it’s delivering on that promise. For patent holders and defendants alike, the duration of infringement actions can significantly impact market strategies, investment decisions, and competitive positioning. In this article, we set out an in-depth analysis of how the court’s procedural rules are shaping the pace of litigation. By examining key milestones—from the filing of an infringement action to the issuance of a final judgment—we assess whether the UPC is delivering on its promise of efficiency.

We have been keeping a close eye on the decisions coming out of the UPC and as the court starts to establish itself a number of practice points are starting to emerge.

expert v. Seoul Viosys, UPC_CoA_380/2025 Order of 20 August 2025 (ORD_22147/2025)[1] This order from the UPC Court of Appeal clearly states that the Court of Justice of the EU cannot be asked to...

UPC_CFI_318/2025, decision of 5 August 2025 (ORD_34299/2025)[1] In a default judgment issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court, Whale Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd.

Centripetal Limited v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc. UPC_CFI_636/2025 Decision of 25 July 2025 (ORD_32958/2025[1]) A recent procedural issue in an infringement case before the Local Division in Mannheim...

Resolution Chemicals Ltd v H Lundbeck A/S Court of Appeal (Civil Division), 29 July 2013Lundbeck’s patent for the pharmaceutical enantiomer escitalopram has been extensively litigated worldwide.

Two sets of changes to the framework for proceedings between parties in intellectual property (IP) disputes in the UK were both introduced on 1 October 2013.

Football Association Premier League Ltd v British Sky Broadcasting Ltd and others [2013] EWHC 2058 (Ch)SummaryBy way of a hearing on 16 August 2013, the Football Association Premier League (“FAPL”),...

In HTC Corporation v Gemalto SA and HTC Corporation v Gemalto NV[2013] EWHC 1876 (Pat), Mr Justice Birss ruled upon the validity and infringement of two telecommunications patents concerning...

Boxing Brands Limited and (1) Sports Direct International PLC, (2) Queensberry Boxing IP Limited, (3) Sportsdirect.com Retail Limited and (4) Lillywhites Limited – 8 to 12 July 2013 – Mr Justice...

SummaryIn this High Court case ([2013] EWHC 2310 (Ch)), Birss J held that the UK high-street fashion chain Topshop committed an act of passing off when they sold T-shirts emblazoned with a photograph...

Viewers of the TV show “Dragons’ Den” might remember the now highly successful Trunki children’s ride-on suitcase which was unanimously rejected by the Dragons as a bad idea.

An online image search tool for figurative trademarks and designs could be launched under new proposals by the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM).

A recent judgment handed down by Mr Justice Birss in Sealed Air Ltd v Sharp Interpack Ltd & Anor [2013] EWPCC 23 (30 May 2013) considers the way in which technical drawings in a registered design...

Interflora Inc & Anor v Marks and Spencer Plc & Anor [2013] EWHC 1291 (Ch)On 21 May, Mr Justice Arnold handed down a lengthy judgment in the long running action between Interflora and M&S.

Swarovski-Optik KG v Leica Camera AG [2013] EWHC 1227.SummaryAt the Patents Court before Vos J, Swarovski-Optik brought patent infringement proceedings against Leica Camera, who challenged the...

Despite recent guidance, the UK High Court has deemed it necessary to refer a question to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) that seeks to clarify what is meant by a “human embryo”,...

In a guest post for the Spicy IP blog, partner Darren Smyth expands upon the issues raised in his earlier post for The IPKat about the decision of the Indian Supreme Court in denying Novartis a...

In his latest IPKat post, Darren Smyth “despairs” at the judgment by the Indian Supreme Court in the recent Glivec decision, refusing the patent application directed to imatinib mesylate in beta...

Darren Smyth’s latest IPKat post is about the recent case of Nestec SA & Ors v Dualit Ltd & Ors concerning Nespresso coffee makers and their coffee capsules.