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 decision from Mr Justice Birss inAdaptive Spectrum And Signal Alignment Inc v British Telecommunications Plc[2014] EWHC 4194 has introduced additional complications for parties found to infringe a...

C‑11/13 Bayer CropScience AG v Deutsches Patent- und MarkenamtThe Court of Justice of the European Union rules that a supplementary protection certificate (SPC) can be granted in respect of a safener.

A strong brand, and trademark protection, create business value. Indeed, intellectual property can become a company’s most valuable asset. Branding in sport is big business.

The question presented in Alice was whether claims directed to a computer-implemented scheme for mitigating “settlement risk” are patent eligible under 35 U. S. C. §101.

In the latest decision of a long-running battle over use of the trademark “youview”, the High Court issued a decision, this week, that may require the £100 million internet television service to...

UK Intellectual Property law was enhanced last week when the Intellectual Property Act 2014 (IP Act) was given Royal Assent. It is expected that the IP Act’s provisions will start to come into force...

The UK Intellectual Property Office has refused to grant an SPC for a medical device, as noted in the decision BL O/141/14. Whilst those aware of the SPC legislation may not find this surprising, a...

A recent decision of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales has highlighted again the importance of the form and amount of detail shown in the views (formally called “representations”) of a design...

In Cosmetic Warriors Limited & Lush Limited v Amazon.co.uk Limited & Amazon EU SARL, Mr John Baldwin QC (sitting as deputy judge) found that the aforesaid Amazon companies (collectively referred to...

In Hearst Holdings Inc & Anor v A.V.E.L.A. Inc & Ors [2014] EWHC 439 (Ch) Mr Justice Birss held that A.V.E.L.A. Inc. and its co-defendants (together “AVELA”) have infringed Hearst Holdings Inc.

Roger Wyand QC (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) recently handed down judgment in Comic Enterprises Limited v Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation [2014] EWHC 185 (Ch).

Case law on the European Patent Office’s approach to non-technical inventions is quite a minefield. This is particularly so in relation to inventions that involve a presentation of information.

Resolution Chemicals Ltd v H Lundbeck A/S Court of Appeal (Civil Division), 29 July 2013Lundbeck’s patent for the pharmaceutical enantiomer escitalopram has been extensively litigated worldwide.

Two sets of changes to the framework for proceedings between parties in intellectual property (IP) disputes in the UK were both introduced on 1 October 2013.

Football Association Premier League Ltd v British Sky Broadcasting Ltd and others [2013] EWHC 2058 (Ch)SummaryBy way of a hearing on 16 August 2013, the Football Association Premier League (“FAPL”),...