Case Reports

The Mannheim Local Division (LD) considered whether it could assert jurisdiction over a non-EU defendant in a patent infringement case involving Hurom and NUC, both Korean companies. While the court confirmed its authority to rule on alleged infringements in Poland, Spain, and the UK—citing recent CJEU case law—it ultimately dismissed the claims due to insufficient evidence of infringement by the defendant in those countries. The decision marks a notable extension of UPC jurisdiction, though practical enforcement remains limited by proof requirements.

The Unified Patent Court rejected Black Sheep’s request for a declaration of non-infringement (DNI) for an alternative product design. The court found the request inadmissible because HL Display had not asserted infringement against the alternative design, and Black Sheep had not formally sought acknowledgment of non-infringement before filing the counterclaim.

Kodak v. Fujifilm (UPC CoA 699/2025, order of 14 October 2025)[1] According to Art. 82(2) UPCA and Rule 354.3 RoP, a party may be sanctioned with a recurring penalty payment, payable to the UPC, if...

Insulet v. EOFlow UPC_CFI_773/2025 and UPC_CFI 774/2025 (Milan CD), decision of 15 October 2025[1] The dispute began when Insulet sought a provisional injunction against EOFlow to prevent...

Brita v. Aquashield UPC CFI 248/2024 (Munich LD), decision of 22 August 2025[1] UPC CFI 564/2024 (Munich LD), decision of 16 October 2025[2] Brita sued Aquashield and others for infringement of...

Apple (Intervener) in Ericsson v. AsusTek and Apple (Intervener) in Sun Patent Trust v. Vivo UPC_CoA_631/2025[1], UPC_CoA_632/2025[2], UPC_CoA_755/2025[3], and UPC_CoA_757/2025[4] – Orders of 23...

The Unified Patent Court promised simplified and faster patent litigation across Europe. Two years in, we look at whether it’s delivering on that promise. For patent holders and defendants alike, the duration of infringement actions can significantly impact market strategies, investment decisions, and competitive positioning. In this article, we set out an in-depth analysis of how the court’s procedural rules are shaping the pace of litigation. By examining key milestones—from the filing of an infringement action to the issuance of a final judgment—we assess whether the UPC is delivering on its promise of efficiency.

We have been keeping a close eye on the decisions coming out of the UPC and as the court starts to establish itself a number of practice points are starting to emerge.

expert v. Seoul Viosys, UPC_CoA_380/2025 Order of 20 August 2025 (ORD_22147/2025)[1] This order from the UPC Court of Appeal clearly states that the Court of Justice of the EU cannot be asked to...

UPC_CFI_318/2025, decision of 5 August 2025 (ORD_34299/2025)[1] In a default judgment issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court, Whale Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd.

Centripetal Limited v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc. UPC_CFI_636/2025 Decision of 25 July 2025 (ORD_32958/2025[1]) A recent procedural issue in an infringement case before the Local Division in Mannheim...

In the previous articles, we looked at the mechanics of filing a patent application. In this last article of our ‘Ask the Experts' series, we will be addressing some of the other ways in which a...

Why do patents take so long to grant?Progressing a patent family through to grant can take a notoriously long amount of time, particularly when an applicant is looking to protect their invention in a...

Last week, the UK Government announced that sales of new petrol and diesel heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) will be banned by 2040. The UK's Road Haulage Association supports the aim, but in a press...

IntroductionIt is said that ‘if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck'. However, if a claim refers to ‘a duck' feature, what does that imply about how the claimed...

Fox Group International Ltd (“Fox”) pursued a claim for trade mark infringement and passing off against Teleta Pharma Limited (“Teleta”) but later discontinued after establishing the goods were...

Add2 Research and Development Ltd v dSPACE Digital Signal Processing & Control Engineering GMBH & Anor [2021] EWHC 1630 (Pat) (https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Patents/2021/1630.

The United States Supreme Court issued a ruling on United States v. Arthrex on Monday 21 June, addressing the constitutionality of the way in which the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) is...

The UK High Court dismissed Puma SE's ("Puma") appeal against UK IPO decision O-415-20 (the "Decision") relating to the registration of the word mark "FOOTWARE" by Nike Innovate C.V ("Nike).

Two form of order hearings have taken place in Original Beauty v G4K. In the first one, the Judge heard the Defendants’ request for a declaration of non-infringement and at the second the Judge...

BackgroundClaydon Yield-O-Meter Limited (‘Claydon') and Mzuri Ltd (‘Mzuri') both manufacture and sell agricultural equipment, including seed drills.

Last week, the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court ("IPEC") heard the trial of quantum in the claim between F.B.T. Productions, LLC ("FBT") and Let Them Eat Vinyl Distribution Limited ("LTEV") for...

UK Gymnastics Ltd & Ors v British Amateur Gymnastics Association [2021] EWCA Civ 425 (24 March 2021)The Court of Appeal recently gave its judgment in a trade mark and passing off dispute between...

In Original Beauty v G4K, the High Court takes a closer look at when using someone else’s garment when designing your own stops being a source of inspiration and becomes an act of outright copying.

In decision T1045/16, EPO Technical Board of Appeal considered whether a patent relating to virus-resistant melons met the requirements of Article 83 EPC.

At a pre-trial review (“PTR”), heard on 19 March 2021, Lord Justice Birss, sitting down from the Court of Appeal, had to decide whether an infringement case based on the doctrine of equivalents which...