Case Reports

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.

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.

The Court of Appeal clarified the necessity of formal applications to maintain confidentiality in Unified Patent Court (UPC) proceedings when disclosing ordered information. This ruling arose from a dispute involving patent infringement and confidentiality claims between EOFlow and Insulet.

Parsons v Convatec [2023] EWHC 1535 (Pat) Background In this judgment of Mr Justice Zacaroli in the Patents Court, it was held that s.40 of the Patents Act 1977 did not require the inventor, Dr...

Those of you who have read my work before, who know me, or who know of me, might reasonably expect this piece to be…vitriolic, shall we say? You may be bracing yourself for a story that starts with...

Introduction Newron Pharmaceuticals SPA (patentee) appealed a decision of the Comptroller General of Patents to refuse its Supplementary Protection Certificate (SPC) application on the ground that it...

KF Global Brands Ltd v Lead Wear Ltd & Ors [2023] EWHC Introduction This case concerned allegations of infringement of UK unregistered design rights (UKUDR) which were claimed to subsist in the...

This case concerns European Patent EP 3138605, relating to a cochlear implant, modified to allow the wearer to undergo MRI scanning. A cochlear implant is a small electronic device that assists a...

Sandoz Limited v Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company; Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries Limited v Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company [2023] EWCA Civ 472 The Supreme...

A discussion of: Regional Court Düsseldorf, Judgement of December 15, 2022 – 4 a O 91/22, „Solarzelle II" (German language source: link) Regional Court Munich I, Order of July 20, 2022 – 7 O 6982/22,...

Nicoventures Trading Limited v Philip Morris Products SA & Anor [2023] EWHC 854 (Pat) Another judgment has recently been handed down in the ongoing global dispute between tobacco giants British...

On 26 April, the European Commission published proposed legislation (specifically a new Regulation and a new Directive) aimed at reforming EU legislation in relation to pharmaceuticals.

At the outset, it must as usual be remarked that this piece should not be relied upon for treatment, solution, comfort or calm. This, and other works like it, are written from but a singular...

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.

As the demand for renewable energy continues to grow, it becomes increasingly important for manufacturers of wind turbines to patent their technology.

IntroductionWhen researchers at Darmouth College coined the term ‘artificial intelligence' ("AI") in a research proposal in 1955, they could hardly have imagined the explosive impact the...

Compulsory licences are a feature of patent law across Europe. They are a recognition that there are some circumstances in which the public interest can over-ride the rights of patentees.

The EU Commission has announced a series of related proposals that will dramatically change the way in which most SPCs are obtained in Europe.