Case Reports

In Rematec v Europe Forestry, the UPC Court of Appeal overturned the Mannheim Local Division’s revocation of the patent and, applying Article 75(1) UPCA, issued a final decision on both validity and infringement despite no infringement finding at first instance. The Court adopted a narrower, description‑led approach to claim interpretation, confirmed the patent’s validity, found infringement, and granted final remedies without referring the case back to the Court of First Instance.

In Syntorr v Arthrex, the UPC Court of Appeal clarified that while litigation insurance is not itself a form of security under Rule 158 RoP, it is a relevant factor when deciding whether security for costs should be ordered at all. By failing to consider the claimant’s insurance policy, the Munich Local Division wrongly exercised its discretion. The Court set aside the €2 million security order and confirmed that insurance can mitigate concerns about cost recoverability.

In Fives v REEL, the Hamburg Local Division of the UPC dismissed a standalone damages action despite prior findings of infringement. Although the UPC was competent to assess damages, the court held that national law applied because the relevant events pre‑dated the UPC’s entry into force. Applying German law, the court found that the claimant had not proven causation or lost profit, highlighting the demanding evidentiary burden for price‑reduction damages claims and the importance of substantiating counterfactual tender outcomes.

In Dyson v Dreame, the UPC Court of Appeal issued its first preliminary reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union. The referral concerns the scope of UPC jurisdiction where a non‑EU manufacturer is sued alongside an EU‑based intermediary acting as an authorised representative, and whether provisional measures may extend to non‑UPC states such as Spain. The decision places important questions about anchor defendants, intermediaries and the UPC’s long‑arm jurisdiction before the CJEU.

The UPC Court of Appeal has clarified that where jurisdiction is based on Article 7(2) of the Brussels Regulation (place of harm), it is limited to damage occurring within UPC territory. In Keeex v Adobe, the Court set aside the Paris Local Division’s decision to hear infringement claims relating to non‑UPCA states, confirming that broader territorial reach requires satisfaction of the strict conditions under Article 71b(3).

In KeyMed v PR Medical, the Milan Local Division of the Unified Patent Court rejected a preliminary objection seeking to change the language of proceedings from English to Italian under Rule 14.2(b) RoP. Although the defendant was an Italian company and the action was brought before the Italian local division, the court held that the language protection did not apply because the alleged infringement was not confined to Italy.

IMC Créations is a French company specialising in anti-theft systems for vehicles, particularly commercial vehicles. Among other things, it sells locks for the side and rear doors of commercial vehicles. Mul-T-Lock belongs to the Assa Abloy group and specialises in high security locking and access control systems, in particular pick-resistant keys and locks. IMC alleged that Mul-T-Lock’s MPV 1000 padlock infringes its unitary patent EP4153830 and the corresponding Swiss national validation.

The dispute arises out of earlier proceedings between Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG (claimant) and Vibrantz GmbH (defendant), relating to European Patent No. 3215288. The Munich Local Division issued a substantive decision on 10 October 2025 addressing infringement and a counterclaim for revocation. Among other findings, the court partially revoked the patent in three Contracting Member States and dismissed the infringement action. In its cost decision, the court apportioned 40% of the costs to the defendant and 60% to the claimant.

It was foreseen that the requirements of the Unitary Patent Regulation (1257/2012) might result that old European patent applications (effective filing date before 1 March 2007) could be ineligible for unitary patent protection. The UPC has now confirmed the view of the EPO that this is indeed the case.

The UPC Mannheim Local Division revoked Centripetal’s patent relating to automated cyber‑event analysis, finding the claimed combination of static and machine‑learned algorithms anticipated by prior art (HAWK) and additional amendments lacking inventive step. With the patent invalidated in Germany and France, the infringement claim against Palo Alto Networks was dismissed. An appeal to the UPC Court of Appeal remains possible.

The UPC Munich Local Division invalidated Sanofi’s cabazitaxel patent, finding that Phase III clinical trial disclosures created a reasonable expectation of success—departing from the EPO’s earlier conclusion.

The UPC Court of Appeal’s November 2025 decisions in Amgen v. Sanofi and Meril v. Edwards provide the most comprehensive guidance to date on inventive step, claim construction, sufficiency, added matter, and procedural rules. The Court clarified how the “objective problem” should be formulated, reinforced the need for a clear pointer or motivation for obviousness, and aligned many principles with established EPO and national case law. The judgments also address injunctions, proportionality, costs, competence, and amendment admissibility—making them essential reading for anyone navigating UPC litigation.

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

IntroductionWhen researchers at Darmouth College coined the term ‘artificial intelligence' ("AI") in a research proposal in 1955, they could hardly have imagined the explosive impact the...

Compulsory licences are a feature of patent law across Europe. They are a recognition that there are some circumstances in which the public interest can over-ride the rights of patentees.

The EU Commission has announced a series of related proposals that will dramatically change the way in which most SPCs are obtained in Europe.

Lock up your authors! ChatGPT is here! And it's coming for your IP!The internet is awash with content written about, or written by, the new chat-bot in town, ChatGPT.

(Tulip Trading Limited v Van der Laan and Others [2023] EWCA Civ 83)In the Dutch Golden Age, circa 1634, the price of tulip bulbs temporarily reached extraordinarily high levels as market speculators...

The European Commission today published it's Proposal for a Regulation on Standard Essential Patents (COM(2023) 232 final 2023/0133 (COD)). An initial and amended version had both been leaked shortly...

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...