Case Reports

Jozef Frans Nelissen v OrthoApnea S.L., Vivisol B BV (UPC_CFI_376/2023) Decision of 17 January 2025[1] (ORD_598478/2023) One of the early evidence preservation orders from the UPC was granted by the...

Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft v ITCiCo Spain S.L. UPC_CFI_412/2023 Order of 9 January 2025[1] (ORD_58414/2024) BMW sought revocation of EP 2796333 belonging to ITCiCo.

FUJIFILM Corporation v Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH UPC_CFI_355/2023 Decision of 28 January 2025[1] (ORD_598539/2023) Fujifilm brought an infringement action...

Fives ECL, SAS v. REEL GmbH UPC_CoA_30/2024 Order of 16 January 2025[1] (APL_4000/2024) Fives applied to the UPC Local Division in Hamburg for a determination of damages following a prior...

SharkNinja Germany GmbH, SharkNinja Europe Limited v. Dyson Technology Limited (UPC_CFI_443/2023 and UPC_CoA_297/2024) Decisions of 5 May 2024 (Order no.

Syngenta Limited v Sumi Agro Limited and Sumi Agro Europe Limited (UPC_CFI_201/2024) Order of 12 December 2024 (ORD_65555/2024[1]) As we reported,[2] Syngenta obtained a provisional injunction...

Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc., Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V. v Roche Diabetes Care GmbH UPC_CFI_454/2023 Decision of 18 December 2024 (ORD_598508/2023[1]) The claimants sought revocation of EP...

DexCom, Inc. v Abbott Laboratories and 13 other Abbott entities UPC_CFI_395/2023 Decision of 11 December (ORD_63909/2024[1]) The second decision on the merits from the UPC came from the Paris Local...

Plant-e v Arkyne UPC_CFI_239/2023 Decision of 22 November 2024 (ORD_598516/2023 [infringement] ORD_598513/2023 [counterclaim for revocation]) The first claimant Plant-e Knowledge B.V.

(Infringement action UPC_CFI_15/2023) Decision of 15 November 2024 (ORD_598479/2023[1]) The Munich Local Division (MLD) decided in favour of patentee Edwards Lifesciences Corporation (Edwards) with...

Pirelli Tyre S.P.A. v Tianjin Kingtyre Group Co., Ltd. and Kingtyre Deutschland Gmbh. (UPC_CFI _650/2024 relating to EP2519412B1) Pirelli Tyre S.P.A. v Sichuan Yuanxing Rubber Co., Ltd.

Häfele SE & Co KG v Kunststoff KG Nehl & Co (UPC_CFI_443/2024 relating to EP3767151) Order of 25 November 2024 (ORD_62433/2024 [1]) This Decision from the Court of First Instance of the Unified...

Insulet Corporation v. EOFLOW Co., Ltd. (UPC_CFI_380/2024 relating to EP4201327) Order of 22 November 2024 (ORD_56716/2024 [1]) This Decision from the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent...

NanoString Technologies Europe Limited v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (UPC_CFI_252/2023) Decision of 17 December 2024 (Order no. ORD_56957/2024 relating to EP 2 794 928 B1) Introduction...

AIM Sport v Supponor UPC_CoA_489/2023 and UPC_CoA_500/2023 Decision of 12 November 2024 (ORD_598488/2023 & ORD_598489/2023) AIM Sport had brought both provisional injunction and infringement...

Alibaba is the largest e-commerce platform in China, and one of the biggest in the world. Its co-founder, Jack Ma, is the richest man in China; he is often compared to Bill Gates and Steve Jobs by...

In a recent decision of the UK Intellectual Property Office, an applicant for a UK patent was allowed to file a response to an examination report (“office action”) more than 18 months after the due...

In August 2013, I produced a short commentary regarding the decision of Mr Recorder Meade QC in SDL Hair Ltd v Next Row Ltd & Ors [2013] EWPCC 31, where Mr Meade was faced with the question of...

A decision from Mr Justice Birss inAdaptive Spectrum And Signal Alignment Inc v British Telecommunications Plc[2014] EWHC 4194 has introduced additional complications for parties found to infringe a...

C‑11/13 Bayer CropScience AG v Deutsches Patent- und MarkenamtThe Court of Justice of the European Union rules that a supplementary protection certificate (SPC) can be granted in respect of a safener.

A strong brand, and trademark protection, create business value. Indeed, intellectual property can become a company’s most valuable asset. Branding in sport is big business.

The question presented in Alice was whether claims directed to a computer-implemented scheme for mitigating “settlement risk” are patent eligible under 35 U. S. C. §101.

In the latest decision of a long-running battle over use of the trademark “youview”, the High Court issued a decision, this week, that may require the £100 million internet television service to...

UK Intellectual Property law was enhanced last week when the Intellectual Property Act 2014 (IP Act) was given Royal Assent. It is expected that the IP Act’s provisions will start to come into force...

The UK Intellectual Property Office has refused to grant an SPC for a medical device, as noted in the decision BL O/141/14. Whilst those aware of the SPC legislation may not find this surprising, a...

A recent decision of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales has highlighted again the importance of the form and amount of detail shown in the views (formally called “representations”) of a design...

In Cosmetic Warriors Limited & Lush Limited v Amazon.co.uk Limited & Amazon EU SARL, Mr John Baldwin QC (sitting as deputy judge) found that the aforesaid Amazon companies (collectively referred to...

In Hearst Holdings Inc & Anor v A.V.E.L.A. Inc & Ors [2014] EWHC 439 (Ch) Mr Justice Birss held that A.V.E.L.A. Inc. and its co-defendants (together “AVELA”) have infringed Hearst Holdings Inc.

Roger Wyand QC (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) recently handed down judgment in Comic Enterprises Limited v Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation [2014] EWHC 185 (Ch).

Case law on the European Patent Office’s approach to non-technical inventions is quite a minefield. This is particularly so in relation to inventions that involve a presentation of information.