Case Reports

Hurom v. NUC UPC-CFI_162/2024 LD Mannheim Decision of 2 October 2025

The UPC’s Munich Local Division denied Onward Medical’s bid for a preliminary injunction against Niche Biomedical, finding serious doubts over the novelty of the granted claim of EP 3 421 081 B1 in light of the Yoo prior art. The court also rejected all eight auxiliary claim requests, holding that amended claims cannot be used to establish likely validity in provisional‑measures proceedings. The decision reinforces that interim relief is only available for patents that appear robust in their granted form.

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...

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...

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.

In the UK, applications to declare a UK registered design invalid can be filed at the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO), whereupon the case is decided by a Hearing Officer of the UKIPO acting...

The UK Intellectual Property Office (UK IPO) has recently published a consultation document on the proposed reform of the UK Designs Legal Framework.

A Patents County Court judgment by HHJ Birss QC in Gimex v Chill Bag provides guidance on whether the indication of the product in a registered design has any bearing when assessing validity and...

Interflora Inc & Anor v Marks and Spencer Plc & Anor [2012] EWHC 1722 (Ch)In a wider action concerning the alleged infringement of two of Interflora’s trademarks through Marks & Spencer’s use of...

On 4 July in Phillips v Mulcaire [2012] UKSC 28 the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom gave judgment on two key issues regarding the privilege against self-incrimination.

The Court of Appeal recently allowed an appeal by Budejovicky Budvar Narodni Podnik (BB), against a decision that found its “Budweiser” mark invalid following an attack by Anheuser-Busch (AB) which...

(HTC Europe Co Ltd v Apple Inc [2012] EWHC 1789).A further decision in the so-called “smartphone wars” was issued by the High Court recently in relation to a patent dispute between HTC Europe Co Ltd...

In addition to an earlier summary by Darren Smyth of the ruling in Generics (t/a Mylan) v Yeda and Teva, Darren has provided further analysis for the IPKat.

Today’s ruling by Mr Justice Arnold (Patents Court, England and Wales) in Generics (t/a Mylan) v Yeda and Teva has been summarised by Darren Smyth for the IPKat.

Samsung has won a longstanding battle with Apple concerning one of Apple's Registered Community Designs for its tablet computers.The decision is significant because it represents the first...

Generics (UK) Ltd v Yeda Research & Development Co Ltd & Teva Pharmaceutical Industries[2012] EWCA Civ 726The Court of Appeal has overturned an injunction that prevented an in-house patent attorney...

Partner Darren Smyth's role as one of the IPKat's guest bloggers has come to a conclusion after six months.He will continue to post intermittently to the IPKat and more regularly to his Blog on EIP...

The UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO) is seeking comments on its proposals to offer support to SMEs to maximise the value of their IP assets.

The litigation between Apple and Samsung about tablet computers and the alleged infringement of a (Community) Registered Design has been taking place in the High Court this week.

A recent IPKat post by Darren Smyth highlights the adverse consumer reaction to the issuance of a patent to a US company 23andMe which offers to sequence your genome and tell you about its...