News Flashes
Showing
Balancing Free Speech and Fair Competition: How Section 12(3) HRA Applies to Threats
Bargain Busting Ltd v Shenzhen SKE Technology Co Ltd & Ors [2025] EWHC 1239 (Ch) Summary This judgment concerns an application by the first Defendant for an interim injunction to restrain the Claimant from making threats of proceedings for trad...
Avoiding Added Matter Pitfalls: Mastering Amendments Before the EPO
“Added matter” objections are a common and often frustrating hurdle in European patent prosecution. The European Patent Office (EPO) takes a particularly strict stance on claim amendments, especially when compared to more flexible jurisdict...
Building a Resilient Quantum Patent Portfolio: Winning the Race to File First
A key question for those working in a fast-paced and complex industry such as quantum technology is when to patent any technological developments. The earlier the filing date of the patent application, the earlier you can start to talk about your inven...
AI and Bitstreams at the Core of China’s Patent Update
On April 30, 2025, the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) released a draft amendment of the Patent Examination Guidelines (for public comment), proposing further revisions to the current Guidelines, which only came into effect ...
Plausibility at the forefront of the UK High Court’s decision in finding AstraZeneca’s patent covering blockbuster diabetes drug invalid
Following hot behind the interim injunction decisions regarding the same subject matter between AstraZeneca and Glenmark (and covered previously in this newsflash here), on 28 April 2025, the High Court handed down its judgment on validity of the paten...
Quantum Sensors: What are they and why do they matter to healthcare?
The UN says we are in a year of quantum, celebrating 100 years since the development of quantum mechanics. While quantum computing is often the main talking point, the other areas of quantum tech, such as quantum sensors are getting increased attention...
Court of Appeal overturns High Court’s decision and grants interim injunction to AstraZeneca against Glenmark
AstraZeneca v Glenmark has seen the parties visiting the courts several times since the validity trial (heard in March of this year) over the past few weeks. This case relates to AstraZeneca’s blockbuster drug Forxiga, used to treat type II diabe...
Exploring IP in a Space Sector Product
Introduction Innovative space sector businesses generate IP all the time. But it can be difficult to appreciate the range of IP being generated, or the value of that IP. In order to help illustrate, we’ve come up with a space sector product o...
Urbis Schreder slips up on anti-climb lighting patents validity challenge
DW Windsor Ltd v Urbis Schreder Ltd [2025] EWHC 563 (IPEC) (14 March 2025) Summary This action involves two companies that design, manufacture and supply exterior lighting fixtures. DW Windsor is the proprietor of two patents (GB 2 495 509 (the &ld...
Right of defence of defendants key to Court’s decision on the addition of a new party and amendments to an existing case
AIM Sport Development AG v TGI Sport Suomi Oy & Ors. (UPC_CFI_214/2023)[1] Order of 11 February 2025 (ORD_6926/2025) The Helsinki Local Division considered AIM Sport Development AG’s (“AIM Sport”) application and allowed the ...
Hacon J warns that the reasonable reader should not be regarded as an “anxious pedant”
Babek International Ltd v Iceland Foods Ltd [2025] EWHC 547 (IPEC) https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/IPEC/2025/547.html This case concerns a trade mark held by Babek International Ltd which they claimed had been infringed by Iceland Foods Ltd, w...
Costs assessment following interim measures at UPC
SSAB Swedish Steel GmbH & SSAB Europe Oy v Tiroler Rohre GmbH (UPC_CFI_640/2024) Orders of 10 February 2025 (Order nos. ORD_68941/2024[1] and ORD_65844/2024[2]) This is a decision on the determination of costs. Following the withdrawal by Tirol...
Related actions filed in different UPC divisions
biolitec Holding GmbH & Co. KG v Light Guide Optics Germany GmbH, S.I.A. LIGHTGUIDE International (UPC_CFI_714/2024) Order of 12 February 2025 (ORD_68717/2024[1]) On 20 November 2024, the Claimant filed an infringement action against the Defend...
Prevayl v Whoop [2025] EWHC 399 (IPEC)
His Honour Judge Hacon has found that Prevayl’s patent for a smart bra was invalid for obviousness over two pieces of prior art. However, had the patent been valid, Whoop would be indirectly infringing the patent by the sale of its “Whoop b...
Standing to bring a claim is not an issue which can be dealt with as a preliminary objection
GXD-Bio Corporation v Myriad Genetics S.r.l and others[1] (UPC_CFI_437/2024) Order of 14 February 2025 (ORD_68782/2024)[2] The claimant brought an action before the UPC Local Division in Munich alleging infringement of EP3,346,403 and seeking damag...
UPC Expedites Proceedings by Prioritising Resolvable Issues
Advanced Bionics and two other Advanced Bionics entities v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH (Revocation action UPC_CFI_338 /2023 and counterclaim for revocation UPC_CFI_410/2023) Decision of 26 December 2024 [1] The Paris Central Divi...
UPC’s jurisdiction extends to acts before UPCA came into force
Esko-Graphics Imaging GmbH v XSYS Germany GmbH, XSYS Prepress N.V, XSYS Italia S.r.l. Order of 10 February 2025 (UPC_CFI_483/2024)[1] The Defendants filed a preliminary objection arguing that the UPC lacks jurisdiction under Art. 32(1)(a) and (f) U...
UPC Claimant Out of Time to Amend: Esko-Graphics Imaging GmbH v. XSYS Germany GmbH & ors
Order of 28 February 2025 (Order no. ORD_3085/2025)[1] (UPC_CFI_483/2024) The Claimant had brought a claim against the Defendants for infringement of EP 3 742 231 (“the Patent”), relating to photo-curable printing plates. In its State...
UPC dismisses infringement claim for network switches
Lionra Technologies Ltd. v Cisco Systems GmbH and Cisco Systems, Inc. (UPC_CFI _58/2024 relating to EP2201740B1) Decision of 19 February 2025 (ORD_65550/2024 [1]) This Decision from the Hamburg Local Division relates to EP2201740B1. The Claimant, L...
T 0458/22 – EPO Board of Appeal considers Rolex’s inadmissibility attack to be inadmissible!
In T 0458/22 (which has a “B” distribution code indicating it is significant enough to be distributed to all Members of the EPO’s Technical Boards of Appeal), the Board of Appeal appears to have gone against reasonably established cas...
Claimant ordered to provide security for costs, denied legal aid
UPC_CFI_224/2024 & UPC_CFI_786/2024 Decision of 27 January 2025 (Order no. ORD_4250/2025, Order no. ORD_4288/2025) The UPC ruled that the Claimant in an infringement proceeding must provide security for costs of the Defendant. The Court further...