Case Reports

Fives ECL, SAS v REEL GmbH (UPC_CFI_274/2023) Order of 17 November 2023 On 8 August Fives ECL, SAS ("Fives") lodged in hard copy a claim for the determination of damages.

Astellas Insitute for Regenerative Medicine v Healios KK and Osaka Univerity (UPC_CFI_80/2023) Order of 20 November 2023 On 1 June 2023, Astellas Institute for Regenerative Medicine ("Astellas")...

10x Genomics, President & Fellows of Harvard College v Nanostring Technologies Inc and others, UPC_CFI_2/2023, Order of 5 December 2023 [1] ORD_ 577241/2023 Following the grant of a provisional...

Meril Italy srl v Edwards Life Sciences Corporation (551308/2023; UPC_CFI_255/2023) Order of 13 November 2023 (ORD_578356/2023) Background On 1 June 2023 Edwards Lifesciences Corporation ("Edwards")...

CUP&CINO Kaffeesystem-Vertrieb GmbH & Co. KG v ALPINA COFFEE SYSTEMS GmbH, Order of 13 September 2023[1] In a case before the Vienna Local Division, the patent holder, CUP&CINO Kaffeesystem-Vertrieb...

The Milan Local Division has granted an inspection order[1] pursuant to Rules 192-199 RoP, the first order granted by the UPC allowing inspection of a defendant's premises.

NanoString Technologies Europe Limited v President and Fellows of Harvard College (UPC_CFI_252/2023) Decision delivered on 30 October 2023 (Order no.

Plant-e Knowledge B.V. & Plant-e B.V. v Arkyne Technologies S.L. Order of 18 October 2023 (ORD_581189/2023) The claimants, two Netherlands companies, ("Plant-e") launched an infringement action on 12...

AIM Sport Vision AG v Supponor Oy & Others (UPC_CFI_214/2023) Decision of 20 October 2023 (ORD_572699/2023 and ORD_5821/2023) Facts & Main Arguments These proceedings before the Unified Patent Court...

myStromer AG v Revolt Zycling AG Düsseldorf Local Division Order of 18 October (ORD_526778/ 2023)[1] Following its first ex parte provisional injunction[2], the UPC (Düsseldorf Local Division)...

Ocado Innovation Limited v Autostore AS & Others – Order of 17 October 2023 (ORD 543819/2023) In September we reported on two judgments by Munich Central Division refusing requests for access to...

Order ORD_576853/2023 [1] dated 29 Sept 2023 by Local Chamber Munich (Presiding Judge and Rapporteur Mr. Zigann) in the case Edwards Lifesciences Corp. vs. Meril GmbH and Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd.

Amgen Inc v Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH & Ors Order of 13 October 2023 (Order ref ORD_580110/2023) [1] Both Amgen and Sanofi-Aventis appealed an order [2] in which an extension of the deadline...

The UPC has published its third decision to preserve evidence (following the related Orders of 13 and 14 June 2023 in Oerlikon Textile GMBH & CO KG v Himson Engineering Private Limited and v Bhagat...

On the same day that the decision granting 10x Genomics a provisional injunction against NanoString on the basis of the unitary patent EP4108782 was announced (19 September 2023), there also took...

A High Court decision highlighting the consequences of inadequate disclosure searches under PD57AD and reaffirming that costs orders are final, even where later failures come to light.

In Valeo v Bosch, the Paris Local Division rejected a jurisdictional challenge and confirmed a broad interpretation of Article 33(1)(b) UPCA. The court held that defendants belonging to the same corporate group may be sued together at the local division where one subsidiary is established, without requiring a direct commercial relationship between each defendant and the anchor defendant. It also confirmed that “the same alleged infringement” requires only identity of the infringed patent, even where the disputed products are not strictly identical.

The High Court’s judgment in Banham v Rogers provides a stark warning for SMEs defending intellectual property claims without professional advice. Acting as a litigant in person, the defendant misunderstood key technical issues, failed to comply with procedural requirements, and mismanaged correspondence and evidence. These cumulative errors left the court with no realistic defence to consider, leading to summary judgment and public reputational damage. The case underlines the importance of obtaining specialist IP advice at an early stage to avoid avoidable and compounding litigation risks.

The Court of Appeal clarified the necessity of formal applications to maintain confidentiality in Unified Patent Court (UPC) proceedings when disclosing ordered information. This ruling arose from a dispute involving patent infringement and confidentiality claims between EOFlow and Insulet.

The Court of Appeal upheld the validity of Babek International Ltd’s trade mark after Iceland Foods Ltd challenged its registration. The judgment clarified that a trade mark must be a single, clearly and precisely represented sign capable of distinguishing goods or services. The court found that Babek’s mark met these requirements, rejecting arguments about lack of clarity and permissible variations. Iceland’s appeal was dismissed, affirming the trade mark’s validity and providing guidance on interpreting trade mark descriptions and representations.

Boehringer Ingelheim successfully obtained another interim injunction from the UK High Court against Dr Reddy, reinforcing its patent rights in ongoing pharmaceutical litigation. The article outlines the case details, the court’s reasoning, and what this decision means for patent enforcement in the UK.

Summary A recent EPO Boards of Appeal decision, T 0136/24, has examined the issue of "reasonable expectation of success" when the prior art discloses a protocol to an ongoing phase 3 clinical trial.

In the recent Decision T 2387/22, the Board's key message was: if you define an invention by a "relative improvement" of a known technical effect, the improvement must be expressed in "objectively...

On 2 July 2025, the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO) issued its landmark decision in case G 1/23 (Solar Cell Sealing Materials and Solar Cell Module), a ruling that has...

Jeff Gosling Limited ("JGL") sued Autochair Limited in the IPEC for a declaration of non-infringement concerning its "Apex Assist" hoist and Autochair's patent, which covers a particular set-up of a...

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...

"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...

A key question for those working in a fast-paced and complex industry such as quantum technology is when to patent any technological developments.

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...

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...