Case Reports

The UPC's Düsseldorf Local Division found that Wessper's cartridges indirectly infringed Brita's patent, and that a narrower claim combination can turn a consumable into an essential element.

In Ericsson v ASUSTeK, the Milan Local Division refused a provisional measures application filed 21 months into the case, finding continuing infringement and rising losses alone do not establish urgency.

The UPC Local Division Milan revoked Cardo's provisional injunction against Reso, ruling its helmet intercom products fall outside the scope of EP4240194, neither literally nor by equivalence.

The Hamburg Local Division let Nixu pursue US-based Infoblox in the UPC for Germany, France and Finland, but threw out the UK claim. To reach a non-UPC territory through an anchor defendant, a claimant must plead joint infringement there.

The Helsinki Local Division found AIM's TV-advertising patent valid but not infringed by TGI, and with no Court of Appeal ruling on equivalence yet, adopted the four-step test both sides put forward, the UPC following the parties' lead.

In Agathon v Intercom, the UPC's Milan Local Division confirmed that statements made during EPO prosecution are not binding but can offer low-weight guidance on the skilled person's view — here narrowing 'abuts' against the patentee.

In Otec v Steros, the UPC's Dusseldorf Local Division revoked an ex parte inspection order after the applicant failed to sue on the merits in time, ordering all preserved evidence returned and destroyed.

On 2 June 2026 the UPC Court of Appeal overturned the Mannheim Local Division's infringement findings against Kodak in both Germany and the UK, on a prior user right in Germany, and on lack of defendant liability in the UK, while upholding the validity of EP 3511174 as amended and laying down a structured framework for exercising jurisdiction over non-EU designations.

These Decisions from the Local Division of the Unified Patent Court in Milan relate to EP2519412 and EP3519207. The Applicant, Pirelli Tyre S.P.A. ("Pirelli") brought two separate infringement actions following respective seizure orders against Tianjin Kingtyre Group Co., Ltd ("Kingtyre") and Sichuan Yuanxing Rubber Co., Ltd. ("SYR"), in view of the exhibition of allegedly infringing products by the defendants at the "International Motorcycle Exhibition" ("EICMA") between 5 and 10 November 2024.

WIRPLAST v VILPE (UPC Munich, April 2026): a roof-fan disclosure was a fair starting point, but the patent for a through-roof ventilation pipe with a spirit level survived; the skilled person would not have leaped.

The UPC Court of Appeal ruled that it lacks jurisdiction to assess costs applications and confirmed they must be filed at the Court of First Instance, rejecting a transfer request in Rematec v Europe Forestry.

In Emporia v Seoul Viosys, the UPC Central Division confirmed that the revocation of an independent claim does not automatically affect the validity of unchallenged claims. The decision underscores the importance of challenging all relevant claims where full patent revocation is sought.

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.

Article 83 EPC (Sufficiency) requires a European patent to disclose the invention in a manner sufficiently clear and complete for it to be carried out by a person skilled in the art.

On 29 April 2020, the UKIPO published an overview report of IP trends for UK Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) and their spin-out businesses, between 1999 and 2018.

The COVID-19 outbreak is impacting people around the globe.The UK government has, like many other governments, been forced to take drastic action to curtail individuals’ movements to enforce social...

Copyright can subsist in a fabric pattern after HHJ Hacon ruled that such designs constitute a work of artistic craftmanship.In Response Clothing Ltd v Edinburgh Woollen Mill Ltd [2020] EWHC 148...

The UK leaves the EU on 31 January 2020 – but until at least the end of 2020 it will be business as usual for intellectual property rights.The Withdrawal Agreement between the EU and the UK was...

The European Union has announced that it will agree to the UK request for a further extension to the period in which the UK remains a full member of the EU (the “Article 50 period”) until 31 January...

Toshiba has become the first organisation to register a ‘motion’ trademark in the UK after submitting a multimedia file.While it has been possible to register motion marks before, submissions were...

In Helsinn Healthcare S.A. et al. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., No. 17-1229, the US Supreme Court held that the assessment of whether an invention had been put “on sale”, and had therefore...

EIP is sponsoring a ChIPs networking event in support of charity Code First: Girls, aimed at helping women enter the tech industry.On Thursday 28 March ChIPs will be hosting a pub quiz in London,...

Actavis and NHS England eligible to claim under cross-undertaking in damages.The Supreme Court decision in the litigation of Warner-Lambert (Pfizer) against Actavis and Mylan has been handed down...

EIP has today secured a judgment on behalf of its client Unwired Planet, in a case which has significant international implications for all patent holders and licensees of Standard Essential Patents...

New preliminary data published by the UK Government for the tax year ending 2017 shows companies have saved a total of £942.5 million in tax relief by using Patent Box.

Henry Martinez (T/A Prick) & Anr. v Prick me Baby One More Time Limited (T/A Prick) & Anr. [2018] EWHC 776 (IPEC)HH Judge Melissa Clarke dismisses passing off claim in prickly dispute between tattoo...

Anan Kasai Co. Ltd & Rhodia Operations S.A.S v Molycorp Chemicals & Oxides (Europe) Ltd [2018] EWHC 843 (Pat).Exhaust gas clarification patent found valid and infringed in claim by Solvay (formerly...

This morning the Patents Court, a division of the English High Court, handed down another important decision in the continuing development of the law relating to Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) and...