Newsroom

The Court of Appeal upheld the invalidity of Hurom’s juicer patent for lack of inventive step, while clarifying the admissibility requirements for patent amendments and the use of the unamended description when construing amended claims. It also confirmed the UPC’s jurisdiction over infringement in Poland despite Poland not being a UPCA Contracting Member State, but found that Hurom had failed to establish infringement under Polish law.

The Court of Appeal confirmed that evidence-preservation orders may be granted ex parte where there is a demonstrable risk that evidence could be destroyed or become unavailable, and that such orders may extend to relevant commercial and promotional documents. However, Art. 60 UPCA does not permit a bailiff or expert to question the defendant’s personnel on substantive technical matters, which must instead be handled under the Court’s control.

The CoA’s decision of 30 April 2025 in Insulet v EOFlow provides important guidance on claim construction, the role of party-appointed experts and the requirements for provisional injunctions.

In T 0903/24, the EPO Board of Appeal relied on reference numerals to interpret disputed claim language, rejecting the patentee's narrower reading and revoking novelty over prior art D2 for the main request.

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.

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.

Chambers recognised EIP for its patent litigation work and its strength in disputes concerning FRAND licensing and standard essential patents.

EIP has retained its Tier 1 ranking in PATMA: Patents and its Tier 2 ranking in IP: Patents (contentious and non-contentious) in the Legal 500 UK 2027 guide. In addition, Gary Moss was inducted into the Hall of Fame in IP: Patents.

Christof Höhne, Darren Smyth, Heather McCann, James Seymour, and Sebastian Fuchs have all been named in this year's list, each recognised for their own approach to building patent value for clients.