Case Reports

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...

What happens when a European Patent Office opposition is pending at the same time as a UPC action? And what happens if the EPO and UPC reach differing conclusions on the validity?

EOFLOW v INSULET UPC_CFI_597/2024 Decision of 22 July 2025 (ORD_69390/2024[1] and ORD_69391/2024[2]) This decision, granting a decision by default against EOFLOW after EOFLOW declined to pay the...

UPC Court of Appeal sets out criteria for evidence preservation and inspection orders Valinea Energie SASU v Tiru SAS (UPC_COA_002/2025) and Maguin SAS v Tiru SAS (UPC_COA_327/2025) Court of Appeal...

Fujifilm Corporation v. Kodak GmbH, Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH UPC_CFI_359/2023 and UPC_CFI_365/2023 Orders of 18 July 2025 The UPC has begun to shape the contours of...

Aesculap AG v Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe) (UPC_CFI_213/2025 relating to EP2892442B1) Order of 10 July 2025 (ORD_32728/2025 [1]) This Decision from the Düsseldorf Local...

Genentech Inc. & F. Hoffmann – La Roche AG v Organon & Co, Organon Heist B.V. NV Organon & Shanghai Henlius Biotech Inc. (UPC_CFI_407/2025 and 408/2025) Orders dated 30 May 2025 (ORD_23125/2025 and...

Nanoval GmbH & Co. KG v ALD Vacuum Technologies GmbH (UPC_CFI_63/2025 relating to EP3083107) Order of 22 July 2025 (ORD_25245/2025 [1]) This Decision from the Munich Local Division of the Unified...

Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v Microsoft Corporation UPC_CoA_363/2025 Decision of 12 July 2025 ORD_32844/2025[1] The UPC Court of Appeal has corrected a lower court's misunderstanding...

In a significant ruling before the Unified Patent Court (UPC)[1], the Court of Appeal has clarified that a claimant in an infringement action cannot request security for costs from a defendant who...

Recent EPO decision T3000/19 casts doubt on how (and practically, whether) audio/video prior art available on the internet should be cited at the EPO.

BackgroundOn 28 June 2022, the UK Government published its updated conclusions to the consultation it launched in October 2021 which looked at how patents and copyright, which respectively are...

A few weeks ago, I wrote an article for Pride Month. I sat down, started to write, and the next thing I knew it was two hours later and I had eight pages of righteous anger and elaborate verbiage...

Swiss drug-maker, Novartis, sought a preliminary injunction to keep Teva and four other generics off the market for its prescription-only relapse remitting multiple sclerosis treatment, fingolimod,...

Once upon a time, in New York City, there was a riot.Not, by itself, an especially notable occurrence – New York is a pretty good place for rioting, as such places go, and as both myself and my...

Mobility-as-a-Service - how will you travel? The taxi service industry has undergone huge disruption over the last decade with the proliferation of ride-hailing apps.

In the third chapter of Neurim and Flynn's dispute with generic companies, Mr Justice Mellor refused the Claimants' application for an interim injunction against generic giant, Teva, on the basis...

This judgment concerns a claim for infringement of a UK and EU registered trademark brought in IPEC by Luen Fat Metal and Plastic Manufactory Co Ltd (the "Claimant") against Funko UK, Ltd (the...

On 6 April 2022, Mr Justice Zacaroli ruled on the highly publicised case involving Ed Sheeran (and others) against Sam Chokri (and others) over Mr Sheeran's 2017 well-known hit "Shape of You.

On 29 March 2022, the Court of Appeal handed down judgment in relation to appeals made by the Claimants (Neurim and Flynn) on two issues. Overturning Marcus Smith J's decisions, the Court of Appeal,...

In the latest flurry of judgments to arise from the Neurim v Mylan (now trading as Viatris) battle over Neurim's insomnia patent and Mylan's presence on the market with its generic version, we report...

Loonshot = an idea that's not just big, it seems mad to even try - Safi BahcallRobot-assisted surgery is a hot area in Medtech. The number of patent filings in robotic surgery system (patent...

The US member of an international group of companies has successfully disputed that it has been duly served via the office of its UK subsidiary.

BackgroundAs shown by the figure above, the applications in question are European stage of an application under the Patent Cooperation treaty (PCT) and its divisional applications.

ASR Interiors Limited v 1) AWS Trading Limited and 2) Giatalia International LimitedA design rights case that provides an example of the wrong way to give video evidence.