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.

(Tulip Trading Limited v Van der Laan and Others [2023] EWCA Civ 83)In the Dutch Golden Age, circa 1634, the price of tulip bulbs temporarily reached extraordinarily high levels as market speculators...

The European Commission today published it's Proposal for a Regulation on Standard Essential Patents (COM(2023) 232 final 2023/0133 (COD)). An initial and amended version had both been leaked shortly...

Before the European Patent Office, applicants frequently wish to rely on experimental evidence obtained after the filing date of the patent application ("post-filed evidence") in order to support an...

BackgroundThe claimants are two companies ("PQ") that produced quality assurance software, in particular statistical process control ("SPC") software and gauge management software.

This Update deals with an interesting determination of the Court of Appeal before Lord Justices Lewison, Asplin, and Arnold where they overturned a finding of anticipation (lack of novelty) made by...

Entertainment One UK Limited & Anor v SCN Media Ltd & Ors [2022] EWHC 3295 (Ch)A seemingly global battle has begun between the owners of Peppa Pig and the makers of Wolfoo.

SummaryOn 3 February 2023, the Court of Appeal in England ruled that the dispute between the Claimant, Tulip Trading Limited ("Tulip Trading") and the Defendants, who are sixteen bitcoin developers...

In Tangle Inc ("Tangle") and One for Fun Ltd ("One for Fun"), Mr David Stone (sitting as Deputy High Court Judge) had to consider the liability of three directors from One for Fun as joint...

BackgroundAt first instance, His Honour Justice Hacon found EP 2 485 558 valid and essential to LTE. Lenovo were granted permission to appeal by Lord Justice Arnold against a finding of inventive...

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 article originally appeared in IAM. Draft regulation not explicit on IP policy but some early guidance is on offer Act offers extensive opportunities for investment and collaboration Risk that...

SummaryIn a very long and detailed judgment, Daniel Alexander KC, sitting as a High Court judge, examined a number of issues relating to successful inventions arising out of research work carried out...

EIP partner Andrew Thompson has recently written an article for The Patent Lawyer on the VLSI v Intel case regarding a semiconductor patent complaint. Read the full article here.

Anan Kasei Co. Limited & Anor v Neo Chemicals & Oxides (Europe) Limited [2023] EWCA Civ 11The Court of Appeal has recently delivered judgment dismissing the Claimants' appeal in the long-running Anan...

Lisa Dräxlmaier GmbH v BOS GmbH & Co KG [2022] EWHC 2823 (Pat)Background The claimant (Dräxlmaier) sought a declaration of non-infringement under s.71 of the Patents Act (s.