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...

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...

This article first appeared in WTR Daily, part of World Trademark Review, in (month/year). For further information, please go to www.worldtrademarkreview.com.

The European Patent Office (EPO) has recently held many online conferences but the real highlight has been the Patent Knowledge week. There were three full days on 28-30 November discussing AI, the...