Case Reports

Teleflex Life Sciences II LLC v Speed Care Mineral GmbH (UPC_CFI_701/2024 relating to EP2007811) Order of 21 February 2025 (ORD_ 68880/2024)[1] Application for preliminary injunction refused.

(UPC_CFI_16/2025) Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 22 January 2025 regarding the preserving of evidence This is a decision on the preservation...

Yellow Sphere Innovations GmbH, Erwin Härtwich v Knaus Tabbert AG UPC_CFI_50/2024 Decision of 10 April 2025 (ORD_68984/2024[1]) This decision from the Düsseldorf local division has a number of...

Emboline, Inc. v AorticLab srl (UPC_CFI_628/2024) Order of 16 April 2025 (ORD_9097/2025)[1] The LD Munich has recently provided some guidance on when security for costs will be available as well as...

Barco NV v Yealink Network Technology Co. Ltd. & Ors. (UPC_CFI_582/2024) Order of 21 March 2025 (ORD_68979/2024)[1] Barco is a company operating in the entertainment, enterprise and healthcare...

Accord Healthcare B.V. & Others v Novartis AG (UPC_CFI_6984/2024) Application to Intervene by Zentiva K.S. and Zentiva Portugal, LDA Order of 27 March 2025 (ORD_10348/2025)[1] The Claimants...

AIM Sport Development AG v TGI Sport Suomi Oy & Ors. (UPC_CFI_214/2023)[1] Order of 11 February 2025 (ORD_6926/2025) The Helsinki Local Division considered AIM Sport Development AG's ("AIM Sport")...

SSAB Swedish Steel GmbH & SSAB Europe Oy v Tiroler Rohre GmbH (UPC_CFI_640/2024) Orders of 10 February 2025 (Order nos. ORD_68941/2024[1] and ORD_65844/2024[2]) This is a decision on the...

biolitec Holding GmbH & Co. KG v Light Guide Optics Germany GmbH, S.I.A. LIGHTGUIDE International (UPC_CFI_714/2024) Order of 12 February 2025 (ORD_68717/2024[1]) On 20 November 2024, the Claimant...

Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v Microsoft Corporation (UPC_COA_563/2024; APL_53716/2024) Appeal Order of 10 February 2025 (APL_68946/2024)[1] The Appellant ("Suinno") filed an...

AYLO PREMIUM LTD v DISH Technologies L.L.C. (UPC_CFI_198/2024) Order of 18 February 2025 (Order no. ORD_59528/2024[1]) Written by Emily Williams The Central Division (Paris Seat) has rejected a...

Esko-Graphics Imaging GmbH v XSYS Germany GmbH, XSYS Prepress N.V, XSYS Italia S.r.l. Order of 10 February 2025 (UPC_CFI_483/2024)[1] The Defendants filed a preliminary objection arguing that the UPC...

GXD-Bio Corporation v Myriad Genetics S.r.l and others[1] (UPC_CFI_437/2024) Order of 14 February 2025 (ORD_68782/2024)[2] The claimant brought an action before the UPC Local Division in Munich...

Advanced Bionics and two other Advanced Bionics entities v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH (Revocation action UPC_CFI_338 /2023 and counterclaim for revocation UPC_CFI_410/2023) Decision of...

Imbox Protection A/S v. Brunngård Group AB & Footbridge Group AB (UPC_CFI_527/2024) Order of 17 February 2025 (Order no. ORD_68981/2024[1] relating to EP 2 276 862) The Stockholm Local Division of...

A High Court decision highlighting the consequences of inadequate disclosure searches under PD57AD and reaffirming that costs orders are final, even where later failures come to light.

The High Court’s judgment in Banham v Rogers provides a stark warning for SMEs defending intellectual property claims without professional advice. Acting as a litigant in person, the defendant misunderstood key technical issues, failed to comply with procedural requirements, and mismanaged correspondence and evidence. These cumulative errors left the court with no realistic defence to consider, leading to summary judgment and public reputational damage. The case underlines the importance of obtaining specialist IP advice at an early stage to avoid avoidable and compounding litigation risks.

The Court of Appeal upheld the validity of Babek International Ltd’s trade mark after Iceland Foods Ltd challenged its registration. The judgment clarified that a trade mark must be a single, clearly and precisely represented sign capable of distinguishing goods or services. The court found that Babek’s mark met these requirements, rejecting arguments about lack of clarity and permissible variations. Iceland’s appeal was dismissed, affirming the trade mark’s validity and providing guidance on interpreting trade mark descriptions and representations.

Boehringer Ingelheim successfully obtained another interim injunction from the UK High Court against Dr Reddy, reinforcing its patent rights in ongoing pharmaceutical litigation. The article outlines the case details, the court’s reasoning, and what this decision means for patent enforcement in the UK.

Summary A recent EPO Boards of Appeal decision, T 0136/24, has examined the issue of "reasonable expectation of success" when the prior art discloses a protocol to an ongoing phase 3 clinical trial.

In the recent Decision T 2387/22, the Board's key message was: if you define an invention by a "relative improvement" of a known technical effect, the improvement must be expressed in "objectively...

On 2 July 2025, the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO) issued its landmark decision in case G 1/23 (Solar Cell Sealing Materials and Solar Cell Module), a ruling that has...

Jeff Gosling Limited ("JGL") sued Autochair Limited in the IPEC for a declaration of non-infringement concerning its "Apex Assist" hoist and Autochair's patent, which covers a particular set-up of a...

Bargain Busting Ltd v Shenzhen SKE Technology Co Ltd & Ors [2025] EWHC 1239 (Ch) Summary This judgment concerns an application by the first Defendant for an interim injunction to restrain the...

On April 30, 2025, the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) released a draft amendment of the Patent Examination Guidelines (for public comment), proposing further revisions to...

Following hot behind the interim injunction decisions regarding the same subject matter between AstraZeneca and Glenmark (and covered previously in this newsflash here), on 28 April 2025, the High...

AstraZeneca v Glenmark has seen the parties visiting the courts several times since the validity trial (heard in March of this year) over the past few weeks.

DW Windsor Ltd v Urbis Schreder Ltd [2025] EWHC 563 (IPEC) (14 March 2025) Summary This action involves two companies that design, manufacture and supply exterior lighting fixtures.

Babek International Ltd v Iceland Foods Ltd [2025] EWHC 547 (IPEC) https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/IPEC/2025/547.html This case concerns a trade mark held by Babek International Ltd which they...

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...