Case Reports

UPC Court of Appeal sets out criteria for evidence preservation and inspection orders Valinea Energie SASU v Tiru SAS (UPC_COA_002/2025) and Maguin SAS v Tiru SAS (UPC_COA_327/2025) Court of Appeal...

Fujifilm Corporation v. Kodak GmbH, Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH UPC_CFI_359/2023 and UPC_CFI_365/2023 Orders of 18 July 2025 The UPC has begun to shape the contours of...

Aesculap AG v Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe) (UPC_CFI_213/2025 relating to EP2892442B1) Order of 10 July 2025 (ORD_32728/2025 [1]) This Decision from the Düsseldorf Local...

Genentech Inc. & F. Hoffmann – La Roche AG v Organon & Co, Organon Heist B.V. NV Organon & Shanghai Henlius Biotech Inc. (UPC_CFI_407/2025 and 408/2025) Orders dated 30 May 2025 (ORD_23125/2025 and...

Nanoval GmbH & Co. KG v ALD Vacuum Technologies GmbH (UPC_CFI_63/2025 relating to EP3083107) Order of 22 July 2025 (ORD_25245/2025 [1]) This Decision from the Munich Local Division of the Unified...

Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v Microsoft Corporation UPC_CoA_363/2025 Decision of 12 July 2025 ORD_32844/2025[1] The UPC Court of Appeal has corrected a lower court's misunderstanding...

In a significant ruling before the Unified Patent Court (UPC)[1], the Court of Appeal has clarified that a claimant in an infringement action cannot request security for costs from a defendant who...

Sichuan Yuanxing Rubber Co., Ltd. and China Council for the Promotion of International Trade, Automotive Sub Council Order of 14 July 2025 (ORD_26742/2025 [1]) This article follows up on the UPC...

Maschio Gaspardo S.p.A. v Spiridonakis Bros GP (UPC_CFI_513/2024 relating to EP1998604) Order of 25 June 2025 (ORD_17812/2025 [1]) This Decision from the Central Division of the Unified Patent Court...

NJOY Netherlands B.V v Juul Labs International, Inc (UPC_CFI_309/2023) Order issued 9 June 2025 (ORD_27305/2025) [1] The Paris Central Division revoked Juul Lab's patent EP 3 498 115 B1 by decision...

Dolby International AB v. Epson France SAS UPC_CFI_77/2025 Order of 27 May 2025 ORD_18316/2025[1] The Hamburg Local Division of the UPC has decided that a withdrawal of opt out from the UPC is valid,...

Hurom Co., Ltd v. NUC Electronics Co., Ltd, NUC Electronics Europe GmbH & Warmcook (UPC_CFI_163/2024) Order of 23 May 2025 (Order no. ORD_69293/2024[1] relating to EP 3 155 936) The Paris Local...

UPC_CFI_58/2024 Following a decision, a successful party has one month to apply for a costs decision (Rule 151). In the relevant case, the main decision (dated 19 February 2025) stated that the...

Zentiva Portugal, LDA v. Boehringer Ingelheim International GMBH (UPC_CFI_41/2025 relating to EP1830843) Court of First Instance Order dated 8 May 2025 ORD_18599/2025 [1] Summary The Application for...

Sanofi Biotechnology SAS, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc.,v Amgen Inc. and others UPC_CFI_505/2024 Decision of 13 May 2025 ORD_598583/2023 This decision from the Düsseldorf Local Division sets out for...

Can use by a competitor of a trademark as a keyword in an advertising service, such as Google’s AdWords service, be restricted by the proprietor of the trademark? Services such as AdWords allow...

The Patent Box reaches another milestone. On the 6 December the Government will publish the draft legislation based on the public consultation in the light of its original proposals.

In Human Genome Sciences Inc v Eli Lilly and Company [2011] UKSC 51, The UK Supreme Court overturned the High Court and Court of Appeal rulings and found that a patent met the requirement of...

The Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBoA) has ruled on the admissibility of disclaimers which disclaim subject-matter which is disclosed as an embodiment in the application as filed.

In its judgement of 18 October 2011, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has confirmed that human embryonic stem cells (hESCs) do not constitute patentable subject matter, given the ban...

The judgment of the Supreme Court in Lucasfilm v Ainsworth [2011] UKSC 39, has both confirmed earlier judgments as to when a three-dimensional item may not be protected by copyright as a work of...

In May 2011, a review, entitled “Digital Opportunity: A Review of Intellectual Property and Growth” (commonly known as “The Hargreaves Review”), was commissioned by the Government to assess whether...

A recent High Court judgement regarding Halliburton’s Patent Applications ([2011] EWHC 2508 (Pat)) signals a new development in the way the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) handles subject...

In a recent High Court judgement involving Samuel Smith and Cropton breweries the Hon Mr Justice Arnold stressed on the importance of mediation for resolving disputes quickly and cost efficiently.

A Court of Appeal judgment in Schutz v Werit has clarified the effect on claims for costs of failing to register an exclusive licence.This judgment is a continuation of an earlier judgment, reported...

This case raised the question of the proper interpretation of a medical use (“Swiss”) claim, and confirmed that they will generally be interpreted in the same way as a “specific use” second medical...

A recent judgement from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in case C-263/09P highlights the interplay between Community Trade Marks (CTM) and national rights.

One of the aspects arising from the judgment in Lundbeck v Infosint [2011] EWHC 907 (Pat) is the potentially narrow scope of prior use rights.

The law governing supplementary protection certificates (SPCs) is in theory harmonised within the EU. However, different interpretations have arisen with the result that there are presently nine...

The Patents County Court has handed down judgment ([2011 EWPCC 15) in a dispute between Albert Packaging Limited (“Albert”) and Nampak Cartons & Healthcare Limited (“Nampak”), regarding alleged...