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...

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.

SummaryOn 12 January 2023, the EDPB published its decision (which was actually made on 5 December 2022) (the "Decision") on the dispute between the Irish Data Protection Commissioner (IDPC) and a...

Teva v Novartis [2022] EWCA Civ 1617The fingolimod saga continues between Teva and Novartis. In a hearing dated 28 November 2022 before Arnold, Nugee, and Floyd LLJ, Teva appealed the decision of...