Case Reports

Procedural order of 1 March 2024 (UPC_CFI_397/2023) As previously mentioned, C_KORE Systems Limited ("C_KORE") is the proprietor of the patent EP 2265793 relating to the testing of subsea apparatus...

Seoul Viosys., Ltd v Laser Components SAS (UPC_CFI_440/2023) Order dated 12 February 2024 (ORD_3311/2024) In this infringement case before the Paris Local Division the defendant, Laser Components...

Plant-e Knowledge B.V. & Plant-e B.V v. Arkyne Technologies S.L. (UPC_CFI_239/2023) Order delivered on 13 February 2024 (ORD_586897/2023) Background The proceedings in this case are an infringement...

10X Genomics, Inc. v Nanostring Technologies Inc. & Ors (UPC_CFI_2/2023; UPC_CoA_335/2023) Order of Court of Appeal on 26 February 2024 On 19 September 2023, the Munich Local Division issued a...

In the first ever public hearing of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court, the provisional injunction obtained by 10x Genomics against NanoString during first instance proceedings has been...

ITCiCo Spain S.L. v Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaf (UPC_CFI_412/2023) Order dated 9 February 2024 (ORD_4804/2024) Background A revocation action was brought in the Paris Central Division...

Ocado v Autostore – appeal on access to documents UPC_CoA_404/2023 Order of 8 February 2024[1] In the Appeal by Ocado against the Order[2] from the Nordic Baltic regional division granting a request...

In this article we discuss two cases which address financial penalties for breach of confidentiality. Krauss-Maffei Extrusion GmbH v Troester GmbH & Co KG (UPC_CFI_181/2023) Order of 27 December 2023...

Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd v Netgear Inc & Ors (UPC_CFI_9/2023) Order of Court of Appeal on 11 January 2024 (UPC_CoA_486/2023); Appeal against ORD_588901/2023 dated 11 December 2023 Huawei sued...

Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH & Ors v Amgen Inc (UPC_CFI_1/2023) Order dated 24 January 2024 (ORD_2233/2024) The pleadings in this revocation action had progressed to the rejoinder by defendant...

Background In a dispute between Aarke AB, a Swedish company, and SodaStream Industries Ltd, an Israeli company, Aarke, as the defendant to infringement proceedings, successfully applied to change the...

For a European patent to be granted, the claims must be "clear and concise". However, some ambiguity or lack of clarity may be identified in granted claims, during infringement or invalidity...

Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH vs Mammut Sports Group AG and Mammut Sports Group GmbH Düsseldorf Local Division Order of 11 December 2023[1] Introduction Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH (in the following...

In the matter of an appeal by Ocado Innovation Limited and applications to intervene by (1) Mathys & Squire LLP and (2) Bristows (Ireland ) LLP Order of Court of Appeal dated 10 January 2024 By Order...

Order of 14 November 2023 (ORD_587064/2023) This was another successful application for preserving evidence, following those in the Oerlikon v Himson, Oerlikon v Bhagat Group, Jozef Frans Nelissen v...

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...

The UN says we are in a year of quantum, celebrating 100 years since the development of quantum mechanics. While quantum computing is often the main talking point, the other areas of quantum tech,...

AstraZeneca v Glenmark has seen the parties visiting the courts several times since the validity trial (heard in March of this year) over the past few weeks.

Introduction Innovative space sector businesses generate IP all the time. But it can be difficult to appreciate the range of IP being generated, or the value of that IP.

DW Windsor Ltd v Urbis Schreder Ltd [2025] EWHC 563 (IPEC) (14 March 2025) Summary This action involves two companies that design, manufacture and supply exterior lighting fixtures.