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 a recent IPKat post, Darren Smyth ponders whether the Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office should be referring cases to the Enlarged Board of Appeal on matters of procedural...

Darren's Smyth's latest IPKat post concerns an action by Smith & Nephew to revoke a patent owned by Convatec Technologies for antimicrobial wound dressings impregnated with silver.

The European Patent Office (EPO) has referred a case relating to dried tomatoes to the Enlarged Board of Appeal for a second time.In his latest IPKat post, EIP's Darren Smyth discusses the most...

In ruling on an application to transfer a passing off and trade mark infringement action from the Patents County Court (PCC) to the High Court, HHJ Birss QC has provided further useful guidance for...

The OHIM has begun publishing information about Registered Community Design applications that have been refused.The designs themselves are not shown, but the grounds for refusal are now being made...

Two Sanofi-Aventis US patents for the cancer drug docetaxel, marketed as Taxotere, have been declared invalid by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

The ongoing dispute between Apple and Samsung over Apple's Registered Community Designs for its iPad has now entered the UK courts.Darren Smyth's latest IPKat post relates to a decision of Mr Justice...

A Polish law which allowed the sale of unapproved drugs which were cheaper than those approved has been declared contrary to EU law.The decision by the Court of Justice of the European Union is...

In today's IPKat, Darren Smyth analyses the decision in Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc, Bayer Pharma AG v Genentech Inc, a case which started as an action for a declaration of invalidity of...

In a decision on 22 March in Teva and ors v AstraZeneca concerning a patent on a sustained release formulation of an anti-psychotic drug, Mr Justice Arnold revoked the patent due to obviousness.

Chancellor George Osborne confirmed in his 2012 Budget that the proposed Patent Box scheme will go ahead.When fully phased in, the rate of Corporation Tax on profits attributed to patents will be 10%.

The European Patent Office (EPO) has published the draft version of revised Guidelines for Examination 2012 online.Partner Darren Smyth casts his eye over the draft version in his latest IPKat post.

The first compulsory licence of an Indian patent since the TRIPS regime was implemented in India has been awarded. Although the licence relates to a pharmaceutical product, the grounds on which the...

Following on from his IPKat post about India granting its first compulsory licence, Darren Smyth explores what limitations the TRIPS agreement puts on compulsory licensing in his latest blog.

The first compulsory licence has been granted by the Controller of Patents Mumbai.The application concerns the anti-cancer drug Sorafenib, a patented drug owned by Bayer Corporation.