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

Judge Asked To Grant A 9/10 Day Interim Injunction to Protect Bayer's Anticoagulant Rivaroxaban Ahead of Main Judgment Pharmaceutical company, Bayer found success in its application seeking an...

Hill v Touchlight Genetics Ltd & Ors [2024] EWHC 533 (Pat) (08 March 2024) Summary This judgment concerns a novel issue in the Patents Court which arose at the second CMC in this action, regarding...

Background The Claimant Seraphine Limited ("Seraphine") a maternity wear retailer had a trading relationship with the Defendant Mamarella GmbH ("Mamarella"), a German online retailer selling...

Key points The transition to green energy may reduce the cost of energy as renewable energy becomes cheaper than fossil fuels for most applications. Cheaper energy will support future technology.

Dr Girish Nivarti joined EIP's London office in October 2022. In this four-part series, he chronicles his first year as a trainee patent attorney. This is the final instalment of the series.

Equisafety v Battle [2024] EWHC 283 (IPEC) Summary This case was originally a trade mark and passing off dispute between two entities over the use of the word mark "mercury" in relation to high...

Cloud Cycle Ltd v Verifi LLC & Anor [2024] EWHC 233 (IPEC) (07 February 2024) Summary This action concerns a claim by Cloud Cycle Limited ("CCL") for a declaration of non-infringement of EP (UK) 1...

Summary A recent decision T 0438/22 from the EPO's Boards of Appeal questions the justification for the EPO's Guidelines for Examination requirement that "claim-like" clauses in the description of...

The EPO Board of Appeal decision on T 0852/20 has recently been published. It is another decision using the new test under G 2/21, which set out when post-published evidence can be relied upon for...

Abbott v Dexcom [2024] EWHC 36 (Pat) Background The first UK battle held in the wide-ranging (both in terms of number of patents and geographical area) patent fight between Abbott and Dexcom has...

Summary On the 1 January 2024, amendments made to the Rules of Procedure of the Boards of Appeal came into force [1]. A change to Article 15(1) means that a Board can now summon parties to oral...

The EPO's Technical Boards hear appeals from decisions of the Examining and Opposition Divisions with the primary aim of providing a factual and legal review of the first instance decision and not to...

The Claimant, Chiaro Technology Limited ("Chiaro"), is the owner of a number of registered designs of which several are incorporated into its product the ‘Elvie', a wearable breast pump.

Bioinformatics has become an increasingly discussed topic in our increasingly digital world. Data analysis has always been part of biology but the increasing need and desire to analyse large data...

On 20 December 2023, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom handed down its judgment in Thaler v Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks [2023] UKSC 49 in which it unanimously...