Case Reports

In Rematec v Europe Forestry, the UPC Court of Appeal overturned the Mannheim Local Division’s revocation of the patent and, applying Article 75(1) UPCA, issued a final decision on both validity and infringement despite no infringement finding at first instance. The Court adopted a narrower, description‑led approach to claim interpretation, confirmed the patent’s validity, found infringement, and granted final remedies without referring the case back to the Court of First Instance.

In Syntorr v Arthrex, the UPC Court of Appeal clarified that while litigation insurance is not itself a form of security under Rule 158 RoP, it is a relevant factor when deciding whether security for costs should be ordered at all. By failing to consider the claimant’s insurance policy, the Munich Local Division wrongly exercised its discretion. The Court set aside the €2 million security order and confirmed that insurance can mitigate concerns about cost recoverability.

In Fives v REEL, the Hamburg Local Division of the UPC dismissed a standalone damages action despite prior findings of infringement. Although the UPC was competent to assess damages, the court held that national law applied because the relevant events pre‑dated the UPC’s entry into force. Applying German law, the court found that the claimant had not proven causation or lost profit, highlighting the demanding evidentiary burden for price‑reduction damages claims and the importance of substantiating counterfactual tender outcomes.

In Dyson v Dreame, the UPC Court of Appeal issued its first preliminary reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union. The referral concerns the scope of UPC jurisdiction where a non‑EU manufacturer is sued alongside an EU‑based intermediary acting as an authorised representative, and whether provisional measures may extend to non‑UPC states such as Spain. The decision places important questions about anchor defendants, intermediaries and the UPC’s long‑arm jurisdiction before the CJEU.

The UPC Court of Appeal has clarified that where jurisdiction is based on Article 7(2) of the Brussels Regulation (place of harm), it is limited to damage occurring within UPC territory. In Keeex v Adobe, the Court set aside the Paris Local Division’s decision to hear infringement claims relating to non‑UPCA states, confirming that broader territorial reach requires satisfaction of the strict conditions under Article 71b(3).

In KeyMed v PR Medical, the Milan Local Division of the Unified Patent Court rejected a preliminary objection seeking to change the language of proceedings from English to Italian under Rule 14.2(b) RoP. Although the defendant was an Italian company and the action was brought before the Italian local division, the court held that the language protection did not apply because the alleged infringement was not confined to Italy.

IMC Créations is a French company specialising in anti-theft systems for vehicles, particularly commercial vehicles. Among other things, it sells locks for the side and rear doors of commercial vehicles. Mul-T-Lock belongs to the Assa Abloy group and specialises in high security locking and access control systems, in particular pick-resistant keys and locks. IMC alleged that Mul-T-Lock’s MPV 1000 padlock infringes its unitary patent EP4153830 and the corresponding Swiss national validation.

The dispute arises out of earlier proceedings between Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG (claimant) and Vibrantz GmbH (defendant), relating to European Patent No. 3215288. The Munich Local Division issued a substantive decision on 10 October 2025 addressing infringement and a counterclaim for revocation. Among other findings, the court partially revoked the patent in three Contracting Member States and dismissed the infringement action. In its cost decision, the court apportioned 40% of the costs to the defendant and 60% to the claimant.

It was foreseen that the requirements of the Unitary Patent Regulation (1257/2012) might result that old European patent applications (effective filing date before 1 March 2007) could be ineligible for unitary patent protection. The UPC has now confirmed the view of the EPO that this is indeed the case.

The UPC Mannheim Local Division revoked Centripetal’s patent relating to automated cyber‑event analysis, finding the claimed combination of static and machine‑learned algorithms anticipated by prior art (HAWK) and additional amendments lacking inventive step. With the patent invalidated in Germany and France, the infringement claim against Palo Alto Networks was dismissed. An appeal to the UPC Court of Appeal remains possible.

The UPC Munich Local Division invalidated Sanofi’s cabazitaxel patent, finding that Phase III clinical trial disclosures created a reasonable expectation of success—departing from the EPO’s earlier conclusion.

The UPC Court of Appeal’s November 2025 decisions in Amgen v. Sanofi and Meril v. Edwards provide the most comprehensive guidance to date on inventive step, claim construction, sufficiency, added matter, and procedural rules. The Court clarified how the “objective problem” should be formulated, reinforced the need for a clear pointer or motivation for obviousness, and aligned many principles with established EPO and national case law. The judgments also address injunctions, proportionality, costs, competence, and amendment admissibility—making them essential reading for anyone navigating UPC litigation.

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

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,...

A recent judgment made by the Chancellor of the UK High Court in a patent dispute has highlighted that the test for obviousness (i.e. inventive step) of the subject matter of a patent does not...

By Andrew Sharples, Partner and head of EIP LifeDigital Opportunity: A Review of Intellectual Property and Growth (commonly known as The Hargreaves Review) was published on 18 May 2011.

A recent judgment has clarified the consequences for a court order based on a successful UK finding of patent infringement when that same patent is later amended at the EPO.

European Court of Justice: Case C-96/09 P A recent appeal to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in relation to the ongoing trademark dispute between Anheuser-Busch and Budvar has highlighted several...

In this case the patentee Servier had obtained an injunction against the defendant Apotex for the sale of a generic copy of the drug Perindopril Erbumine.

The Court of Appeal judgment ([2011] EWCA Civ 303) in Schütz v Werit has shed some light on the appropriate test for deciding whether a given act of reconditioning of a patented product constitutes a...

A recent case in the English courts raises questions that could affect the way global business is performed over the internet. Since 1998, databases have been protected in the UK under a ‘sui...

A few years ago, Google decided to allow businesses in the US and in the European Union to buy Google AdWords consisting of their competitors' registered trademarks so that anyone can bid on a...

A recent UK court decision has concluded that, in appropriate circumstances, post-sale confusion could be used to demonstrate a likelihood of confusion when potential trademark infringement was being...

It seems a single EU patent, covering all the EU Member States other than Spain and Italy, may become a reality. How this would be litigated, however, remains unclear.

A recent High Court decision demonstrates that a post-grant amendment may still be rejected in the UK at the discretion of the court. The amendment was rejected as even though the scope of the...