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.

A recent judgment made by the Chancellor of the UK High Court in a patent dispute has highlighted that the test for obviousness (i.e. inventive step) of the subject matter of a patent does not...

By Andrew Sharples, Partner and head of EIP LifeDigital Opportunity: A Review of Intellectual Property and Growth (commonly known as The Hargreaves Review) was published on 18 May 2011.

A recent judgment has clarified the consequences for a court order based on a successful UK finding of patent infringement when that same patent is later amended at the EPO.

European Court of Justice: Case C-96/09 P A recent appeal to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in relation to the ongoing trademark dispute between Anheuser-Busch and Budvar has highlighted several...

In this case the patentee Servier had obtained an injunction against the defendant Apotex for the sale of a generic copy of the drug Perindopril Erbumine.

The Court of Appeal judgment ([2011] EWCA Civ 303) in Schütz v Werit has shed some light on the appropriate test for deciding whether a given act of reconditioning of a patented product constitutes a...

A recent case in the English courts raises questions that could affect the way global business is performed over the internet. Since 1998, databases have been protected in the UK under a ‘sui...

A few years ago, Google decided to allow businesses in the US and in the European Union to buy Google AdWords consisting of their competitors' registered trademarks so that anyone can bid on a...

A recent UK court decision has concluded that, in appropriate circumstances, post-sale confusion could be used to demonstrate a likelihood of confusion when potential trademark infringement was being...

It seems a single EU patent, covering all the EU Member States other than Spain and Italy, may become a reality. How this would be litigated, however, remains unclear.

A recent High Court decision demonstrates that a post-grant amendment may still be rejected in the UK at the discretion of the court. The amendment was rejected as even though the scope of the...

Two of the numerous factors to be weighed when deciding on UK or European Community (CTM) registration are: intent to use: still a prerequisite for a valid UK application, although not a CTM;speed of...

It is not uncommon for counterfeit goods to pass through the EU in transit to their final destination. This raises the question of whether such goods fall within the jurisdiction of the EU, and can...

Advocate General Verica Trstenjak recently gave her opinion on questions referred to the European Court of Justice by the UK Court of Appeal regarding the latest dispute in the complex on-going...

This appeal decision demonstrates the importance of considering potential patent amendments early in litigious proceedings. The appeal was concerned with two patents which were part of a larger...