Case Reports

Carrier Corporation v. BITZER Electronics A/S UPC_CFI_263/2023 Order of 30 April 2024 (ORD_24607/2024)[1] BITZER Electronics filed a revocation action on 29 June 2023 against EP 3414708 at the Paris...

Ocado Innovation Limited v Autostore AS & Others (UPC_CoA_404/2023) Order dated 10 April 2024 (ORD_19369/2024)[1] A member of the public requested access to documents under Rule 262.

Mammut Sports Group AG and Mammut Sports Group GmbH Düsseldorf Local Division Order of 09 April 2024[1] Introduction In its order dated 11 December 2023, the Düsseldorf Local Division (in the...

MED-EL v Advanced Bionics (UPC_CFI_410/2023) Order of 15 April 2024 (ORD_13321/2024)[1] MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H. filed an infringement action in the German language at...

Panasonic Holdings Corporation v Xiaomi Inc et al UPC_CFI_218/2023, 219/2023 and 223/2023 Orders of 6 May 2024[1] Panasonic has sued multiple defendants from the Xiaomi group of companies for patent...

AIM Sport Vision v Supponor UPC_CoA_500/2023 Order of 26 April 2024 (ORD_23089/2024) There has been confusion in some of the first instance divisions of the Unified Patent Court as to whether certain...

Daedalus Prime v. Xiaomi and others Order of 18 April 2024 ORD_20986/2024[1] Daedalus Prime LLC filed a patent infringement action based on EP2792100 at the UPC local division in Hamburg.

In recent months the Local Divisions of Mannheim, Paris and Düsseldorf have given guidance on access to confidential material. These judgments address the procedure for protecting confidential...

Progress Maschinen & Automation AG v AWM Srl and Schnell S.p.A (UPC_CFI_286/2023 and 287/2023) Order dated 8 April 2024 (ORD_9710/2024)[1] Progress Maschinen & Automation AG ("PMA") filed...

Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd v Netgear Inc & Ors (UPC_CFI_9/2023) Order[1] of Court of Appeal on 11 March 2024 (UPC_CoA_44/2024); Appeal against ORD_593106/2024 of the CFI panel dated 18 January...

Juul Labs International, Inc. v. NJOY Netherlands B.V. (UPC_CoA_433/2023, UPC_CoA_435/2023, UPC_CoA_436/2023, UPC_CoA_437/2023, UPC_CoA_438/202)[1] Orders of 3 April 2024 (ORD_598223/2023,...

Meril Italy v Edwards Lifesciences UPC_CFI_255/2023 (Revocation action at Paris Central Division) Order of 28 February 2024 (ORD_7283/2024)[1] This order relates to the action brought by Meril Italy...

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...

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...