Case Reports

Syngenta v Sumi Agro UPC_CFI_201/2024 Order dated 27 August 2024 ORD_47657/2024[1] Syngenta Limited ("Syngenta") applied for a preliminary injunction against Sumi Agro ("Sumi").

Hand Held Products, Inc. v Scandit AG UPC_CFI_74/2024 Order of 27 August 2024 ORD_46277/2024[1] The claimant Hand Held Products, Inc. is the proprietor of EP3866051, registered as a Unitary Patent,...

Aylo Premium Ltd, Aylo Billing Limited and Aylo Freesites Ltd v Dish Technologies and Sling TV UPC_CoA_188/2024 Order of 3 September 2024 ORD_42716/2024[1] Dish is the proprietor of EP 2479680 and...

Novartis AG and Genentech, Inc. v Celltrion Inc. UPC_CFI_166/2024 Novartis AG and Genentech, Inc. v Celltrion Healthcare Hungary Kft., Celltrion Healthcare Deutschland GmbH, Celltrion Healthcare...

On 19 August 2024, the Court of Appeal (CoA) of the Unified Patent Court issued its order (UPC_CoA_388/2024 APL_39884/2024) on an application for suspensive effect in the appeal by Sibio Technology...

Panasonic Holdings Corporation v Xiaomi H.K. Limited (UPC_CFI_330/2024, UPC_CFI_332/2024 and UPC_CFI_335/2024) Orders of 1 August 2023 (ORD_44601/2024, ORD_44597/2024, ORD_44656/2024)[1] Panasonic...

Two recent decisions highlight procedural points to be aware of when seeking costs. VusionGroup SA (formerly SES-imagotag SA) v Hanshow Germany GmbH & Ors (UPC_CFI_292/2023; UPC_COA_1/2024) Court of...

Progress Maschinen & Automation AG v AWM Srl and Schnell S.p.A (UPC_CFI_286/2023 and 287/2023; UPC_COA_177/2024) Court of Appeal Order dated 23 July 2024 (ORD_36778/2024) [1] Progress Maschinen &...

Bitzer Electronics A/S v Carrier Corporation (UPC_CFI_263/2023) Decision of 29 July 2024 (ORD_598395/2023) [1] This decision concerns a revocation action brought at the Paris central division by...

Amycel LLC v Szymon Spyra (UPC_CFI_195/2024) Order of 31 July 2024 (ORD_44133/2024) [1] Amycel LLC is the proprietor of EP 1993350, which is directed towards a specific mushroom strain, defined by...

Szymon Spyra v. Amycel LLC (UPC_CFI_195/2024) Procedural Order delivered on 25 June 2024 (ORD_35405/2024) In a procedural order from the UPC, the Local Division The Hague has decided on a...

Meril Italy Srl and two other Meril entities v Edwards Lifesciences Corporation (revocation action UPC_CFI_255/2023 and counterclaims for revocation UPC_CFI_15/2023) Decision of 19 July 2024...

DexCom, Inc. v Abbott Laboratories and nine other Abbott entities (UPC_CFI_230/2023) Decision of 4 July 2024 (ORD_37297/2024) [1] The second decision on the merits from the UPC, following just a day...

Franz Kaldewei GmbH & Co. KG v Bette GmbH & Co. KG (UPC_CFI_7/2023) Decision of 3 July 2024 (ORD_598324/2023 [1]) concerning EP 3 375 337 B1 Franz Kaldewei GmbH & Co.

The Hague Local Division of the Court of First Instance of the UPC has recently issued two decisions concerning provisional measures involving the same parties - the Patentee Applicant, Abbott...

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...

In T 0458/22 (which has a "B" distribution code indicating it is significant enough to be distributed to all Members of the EPO's Technical Boards of Appeal), the Board of Appeal appears to have gone...

Dainese S.p.A. v. Alpinestars S.p.A., Alpinestars Research S.p.A., Omnia Retail S.r.l., Horizon Moto 95 – Maxxess Cergy, Zund.Stoff Augsburg/Ulrich Herpich E.K., Motocard Bike S.I.