Case Reports

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...

Cardo Systems, Ltd. v Shenzhen Asmax Infinite Technology Co., Ltd. and Hong Kong Yiheng International Technology Co. Limited (UPC_CFI_643/2024 relating to EP4240194) Order of 5 November 2024...

G. Pohl-Boskamp GmbH & C. KG v pharma-aktiva GmbH and others UPC_CFI_541/2024 Order of 20 December 2024 (ORD_67522/2024) The claimant G. Pohl-Boskamp GmbH & C.

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 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.

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...