Case Reports

In Rematec v Europe Forestry, the UPC Court of Appeal overturned the Mannheim Local Division’s revocation of the patent and, applying Article 75(1) UPCA, issued a final decision on both validity and infringement despite no infringement finding at first instance. The Court adopted a narrower, description‑led approach to claim interpretation, confirmed the patent’s validity, found infringement, and granted final remedies without referring the case back to the Court of First Instance.

In Syntorr v Arthrex, the UPC Court of Appeal clarified that while litigation insurance is not itself a form of security under Rule 158 RoP, it is a relevant factor when deciding whether security for costs should be ordered at all. By failing to consider the claimant’s insurance policy, the Munich Local Division wrongly exercised its discretion. The Court set aside the €2 million security order and confirmed that insurance can mitigate concerns about cost recoverability.

In Fives v REEL, the Hamburg Local Division of the UPC dismissed a standalone damages action despite prior findings of infringement. Although the UPC was competent to assess damages, the court held that national law applied because the relevant events pre‑dated the UPC’s entry into force. Applying German law, the court found that the claimant had not proven causation or lost profit, highlighting the demanding evidentiary burden for price‑reduction damages claims and the importance of substantiating counterfactual tender outcomes.

In Dyson v Dreame, the UPC Court of Appeal issued its first preliminary reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union. The referral concerns the scope of UPC jurisdiction where a non‑EU manufacturer is sued alongside an EU‑based intermediary acting as an authorised representative, and whether provisional measures may extend to non‑UPC states such as Spain. The decision places important questions about anchor defendants, intermediaries and the UPC’s long‑arm jurisdiction before the CJEU.

In Valeo v Bosch, the Paris Local Division rejected a jurisdictional challenge and confirmed a broad interpretation of Article 33(1)(b) UPCA. The court held that defendants belonging to the same corporate group may be sued together at the local division where one subsidiary is established, without requiring a direct commercial relationship between each defendant and the anchor defendant. It also confirmed that “the same alleged infringement” requires only identity of the infringed patent, even where the disputed products are not strictly identical.

The UPC Court of Appeal has clarified that where jurisdiction is based on Article 7(2) of the Brussels Regulation (place of harm), it is limited to damage occurring within UPC territory. In Keeex v Adobe, the Court set aside the Paris Local Division’s decision to hear infringement claims relating to non‑UPCA states, confirming that broader territorial reach requires satisfaction of the strict conditions under Article 71b(3).

In KeyMed v PR Medical, the Milan Local Division of the Unified Patent Court rejected a preliminary objection seeking to change the language of proceedings from English to Italian under Rule 14.2(b) RoP. Although the defendant was an Italian company and the action was brought before the Italian local division, the court held that the language protection did not apply because the alleged infringement was not confined to Italy.

IMC Créations is a French company specialising in anti-theft systems for vehicles, particularly commercial vehicles. Among other things, it sells locks for the side and rear doors of commercial vehicles. Mul-T-Lock belongs to the Assa Abloy group and specialises in high security locking and access control systems, in particular pick-resistant keys and locks. IMC alleged that Mul-T-Lock’s MPV 1000 padlock infringes its unitary patent EP4153830 and the corresponding Swiss national validation.

The dispute arises out of earlier proceedings between Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG (claimant) and Vibrantz GmbH (defendant), relating to European Patent No. 3215288. The Munich Local Division issued a substantive decision on 10 October 2025 addressing infringement and a counterclaim for revocation. Among other findings, the court partially revoked the patent in three Contracting Member States and dismissed the infringement action. In its cost decision, the court apportioned 40% of the costs to the defendant and 60% to the claimant.

It was foreseen that the requirements of the Unitary Patent Regulation (1257/2012) might result that old European patent applications (effective filing date before 1 March 2007) could be ineligible for unitary patent protection. The UPC has now confirmed the view of the EPO that this is indeed the case.

The UPC Mannheim Local Division revoked Centripetal’s patent relating to automated cyber‑event analysis, finding the claimed combination of static and machine‑learned algorithms anticipated by prior art (HAWK) and additional amendments lacking inventive step. With the patent invalidated in Germany and France, the infringement claim against Palo Alto Networks was dismissed. An appeal to the UPC Court of Appeal remains possible.

The UPC Munich Local Division invalidated Sanofi’s cabazitaxel patent, finding that Phase III clinical trial disclosures created a reasonable expectation of success—departing from the EPO’s earlier conclusion.

The UPC Court of Appeal’s November 2025 decisions in Amgen v. Sanofi and Meril v. Edwards provide the most comprehensive guidance to date on inventive step, claim construction, sufficiency, added matter, and procedural rules. The Court clarified how the “objective problem” should be formulated, reinforced the need for a clear pointer or motivation for obviousness, and aligned many principles with established EPO and national case law. The judgments also address injunctions, proportionality, costs, competence, and amendment admissibility—making them essential reading for anyone navigating UPC litigation.

Hurom v. NUC UPC-CFI_162/2024 LD Mannheim Decision of 2 October 2025

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...

Last year, the UK IPO called for views on the relationship between Artificial Intelligence (AI) and the intellectual property (IP) system. On 23 March 2021, the UK IPO published their response to the...

In the latest bout between Neurim v Mylan in this pharmaceutical patent case concerning the treatment of insomnia and what looks to be Round 5 in the court room, on 12 March 2021, the English Patents...

In its decision G1/19 (Simulations), the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the EPO has confirmed that it is business as usual when assessing the patentability of computer-implemented inventions, even when...

The UK Patent Box scheme is set to become an even more valuable tax benefit in the near future. With Chancellor Rishi Sunak's announcement of higher corporate tax rates from 2023, larger and more...

Ocado Group PLC & Anr v Raymond John McKeeve [2021] EWCA Civ 145Court of Appeal overturns first instance judge and allows application to commit solicitor for contempt of courtThis is an appeal...

IPCom GmbH v Vodafone Group plc & Ors [2021] EWCA Civ 205This case involves a dispute between IPCom, an intellectual property licensing company, and Vodafone, the well-known telecommunications...

Penhallurick v MD5 Limited [2021] EWHC 93 (IPEC) 15 February 2021This case demonstrates the importance of understanding how work undertaken for an employer shapes copyright ownership and, ironically,...

EIP has been highlighted as one of the world’s leading trademark specialists in the 2021 edition of WTR 1000.Researchers for WTR 1000, published annually by World Trademark Review, references EIP’s...

Illumina Cambridge Limited v Latvia MGI Tech SIA & Ors[2021] EWHC 57 (Pat)The case centres on Illumina's contention that MGI's DNA sequencing systems infringe their patents.

Last Friday, 16October 2020, judgment was handed down by Mr Justice Birss in the High Court, London, in the first of four technical trials listed in EIP client Optis’ UK patent litigation and...

EIP has been highly rated in the 2021 edition of Chambers & Partners UK.Researchers highlighted EIP for its “excellent patent prosecution and oppositions practice” and its “highly capable trademark...

Litigation solicitors Tom Brazier and Catherine Howell along with patent attorneys Robert Barker, Tim Belcher, and Felix Hall have all been ranked as “Rising Stars” in the 2020 edition of IP Stars...

The Enlarged Board of Appeal at the European Patent Office has now provided its opinion in G3/19 abandoning the interpretation of Article 53 (b) EPC given in previous decision G2/12.