Case Reports

Hurom v. NUC UPC-CFI_162/2024 LD Mannheim Decision of 2 October 2025

The UPC’s Munich Local Division denied Onward Medical’s bid for a preliminary injunction against Niche Biomedical, finding serious doubts over the novelty of the granted claim of EP 3 421 081 B1 in light of the Yoo prior art. The court also rejected all eight auxiliary claim requests, holding that amended claims cannot be used to establish likely validity in provisional‑measures proceedings. The decision reinforces that interim relief is only available for patents that appear robust in their granted form.

The Unified Patent Court rejected Black Sheep’s request for a declaration of non-infringement (DNI) for an alternative product design. The court found the request inadmissible because HL Display had not asserted infringement against the alternative design, and Black Sheep had not formally sought acknowledgment of non-infringement before filing the counterclaim.

Kodak v. Fujifilm (UPC CoA 699/2025, order of 14 October 2025)[1] According to Art. 82(2) UPCA and Rule 354.3 RoP, a party may be sanctioned with a recurring penalty payment, payable to the UPC, if...

Brita v. Aquashield UPC CFI 248/2024 (Munich LD), decision of 22 August 2025[1] UPC CFI 564/2024 (Munich LD), decision of 16 October 2025[2] Brita sued Aquashield and others for infringement of...

Insulet v. EOFlow UPC_CFI_773/2025 and UPC_CFI 774/2025 (Milan CD), decision of 15 October 2025[1] The dispute began when Insulet sought a provisional injunction against EOFlow to prevent...

Brita v. Aquashield UPC CFI 248/2024 (Munich LD), decision of 22 August 2025[1] UPC CFI 564/2024 (Munich LD), decision of 16 October 2025[2] Brita sued Aquashield and others for infringement of...

Apple (Intervener) in Ericsson v. AsusTek and Apple (Intervener) in Sun Patent Trust v. Vivo UPC_CoA_631/2025[1], UPC_CoA_632/2025[2], UPC_CoA_755/2025[3], and UPC_CoA_757/2025[4] – Orders of 23...

The Unified Patent Court promised simplified and faster patent litigation across Europe. Two years in, we look at whether it’s delivering on that promise. For patent holders and defendants alike, the duration of infringement actions can significantly impact market strategies, investment decisions, and competitive positioning. In this article, we set out an in-depth analysis of how the court’s procedural rules are shaping the pace of litigation. By examining key milestones—from the filing of an infringement action to the issuance of a final judgment—we assess whether the UPC is delivering on its promise of efficiency.

We have been keeping a close eye on the decisions coming out of the UPC and as the court starts to establish itself a number of practice points are starting to emerge.

expert v. Seoul Viosys, UPC_CoA_380/2025 Order of 20 August 2025 (ORD_22147/2025)[1] This order from the UPC Court of Appeal clearly states that the Court of Justice of the EU cannot be asked to...

UPC_CFI_318/2025, decision of 5 August 2025 (ORD_34299/2025)[1] In a default judgment issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court, Whale Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd.

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...

A recent judgement in the Patents Court [2011] EWHC 907 (Pat) by the Hon Mr Justice Floyd has emphasised the importance of registering assignments and exclusive licences relating to European patents...

What is a 'Patent Box'? The Patent Box is a taxation scheme proposed for the UK. Under the Patent Box scheme companies will be able to apply a 10% rate of corporation tax for net profits arising from...

The European Patent Office (EPO) and the International Telecommunications Union (ITU), which creates Information and Communication Technology (ICT) standards, have announced that they have signed an...

This judgement by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) confirms that when a national court acting as a Community Trade Mark Court imposes measures to ensure compliance with a judgment,...