Case Reports

Panasonic Holdings Corporation v Xiaomi Inc et al UPC_CFI_218/2023, 219/2023 and 223/2023 Orders of 6 May 2024[1] Panasonic has sued multiple defendants from the Xiaomi group of companies for patent...

AIM Sport Vision v Supponor UPC_CoA_500/2023 Order of 26 April 2024 (ORD_23089/2024) There has been confusion in some of the first instance divisions of the Unified Patent Court as to whether certain...

Daedalus Prime v. Xiaomi and others Order of 18 April 2024 ORD_20986/2024[1] Daedalus Prime LLC filed a patent infringement action based on EP2792100 at the UPC local division in Hamburg.

In recent months the Local Divisions of Mannheim, Paris and Düsseldorf have given guidance on access to confidential material. These judgments address the procedure for protecting confidential...

Progress Maschinen & Automation AG v AWM Srl and Schnell S.p.A (UPC_CFI_286/2023 and 287/2023) Order dated 8 April 2024 (ORD_9710/2024)[1] Progress Maschinen & Automation AG ("PMA") filed...

Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd v Netgear Inc & Ors (UPC_CFI_9/2023) Order[1] of Court of Appeal on 11 March 2024 (UPC_CoA_44/2024); Appeal against ORD_593106/2024 of the CFI panel dated 18 January...

Juul Labs International, Inc. v. NJOY Netherlands B.V. (UPC_CoA_433/2023, UPC_CoA_435/2023, UPC_CoA_436/2023, UPC_CoA_437/2023, UPC_CoA_438/202)[1] Orders of 3 April 2024 (ORD_598223/2023,...

Meril Italy v Edwards Lifesciences UPC_CFI_255/2023 (Revocation action at Paris Central Division) Order of 28 February 2024 (ORD_7283/2024)[1] This order relates to the action brought by Meril Italy...

Procedural order of 1 March 2024 (UPC_CFI_397/2023) As previously mentioned, C_KORE Systems Limited ("C_KORE") is the proprietor of the patent EP 2265793 relating to the testing of subsea apparatus...

Seoul Viosys., Ltd v Laser Components SAS (UPC_CFI_440/2023) Order dated 12 February 2024 (ORD_3311/2024) In this infringement case before the Paris Local Division the defendant, Laser Components...

Plant-e Knowledge B.V. & Plant-e B.V v. Arkyne Technologies S.L. (UPC_CFI_239/2023) Order delivered on 13 February 2024 (ORD_586897/2023) Background The proceedings in this case are an infringement...

10X Genomics, Inc. v Nanostring Technologies Inc. & Ors (UPC_CFI_2/2023; UPC_CoA_335/2023) Order of Court of Appeal on 26 February 2024 On 19 September 2023, the Munich Local Division issued a...

In the first ever public hearing of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court, the provisional injunction obtained by 10x Genomics against NanoString during first instance proceedings has been...

ITCiCo Spain S.L. v Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaf (UPC_CFI_412/2023) Order dated 9 February 2024 (ORD_4804/2024) Background A revocation action was brought in the Paris Central Division...

Ocado v Autostore – appeal on access to documents UPC_CoA_404/2023 Order of 8 February 2024[1] In the Appeal by Ocado against the Order[2] from the Nordic Baltic regional division granting a request...

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.