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.

Der Deutsche Bundesrat hat heute über zwei Gesetze abgestimmt, die der Reform des europäischen Patentsystems in Deutschland den Weg ebnen.Höhe- und Schlusspunkt dieser seit den 1960er Jahren...

The IP Federation, the Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys and the Intellectual Property Lawyers Association have obtained the opinion of leading counsel (Richard Gordon Q.C.

In a recent application regarding appropriate Court fees (Lifestyles Equities CV v Sportsdirect.com Retail Ltd), the High Court confirmed that issuing a claim form limited to a claim for intellectual...

The Rubik’s Cube is currently protected by a 3D trademark across the EU (Registration No. 162784), but perhaps not for much longer as the Attorney General of the Court of Justice of the European...

The announcement from Toyota on 9 June that it was considering making a “formal legal complaint” against Vote Leave for use of the Toyota mark in its campaign materials and the raising of similar...

The UK Intellectual Property Office (UK IPO) recently issued a Designs Practice Notice (DPN) 1/16 to provide users with updated guidance on registered design practice in the UK.

In England and Wales Cricket Board Limited and Sky UK Limited vs Tixdaq Limited and Fanatix Limited, the High Court has found that the reproduction and communication to the public of short clips of...

BMW has been partly successful in a claim against an unauthorised car repair shop for infringement and passing off - Bayerische Motoren Werke AG (“BMW”) v Technosport London Ltd (“TLL”) and George...

This month, the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) has published the UK Government's plans "to keep pace with the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead" in IP enforcement.

On 7 April 2016 Advocate General Wathelethas delivered his opinion in GS Media BV v Sanoma Media Netherlands BV, Playboy Enterprises International Inc., Britt Dekker (Case C‑160/15).

In 2013, as part of the longstanding battle over Cadbury’s protection for the colour purple, the Court of Appeal (Société Des Produits Nestlé S.

The Supreme Court has upheld the Court of Appeal’s decision that the Kiddee Case produced by PMS did not infringe Magmatic’s Registered Community Design for the Trunki suitcase, “the CRD”.

A recent decision at the UK Intellectual Property Office emphasises again how important it is to establish ownership of rights in inventions (particularly before the first patent application is...

Jaguar Land Rover’s application to register an EU-wide trademark for the shape of one of their Land Rover cars has been rejected by the EU General Court.

Scammers who deceived intellectual property owners by issuing fraudulent renewal letters and invoices have been fined the maximum £500,000 penalty by the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court...