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

On 22 September 2022, the United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office (IPO) published Enhanced Guidance on Examining Patent Applications Relating to Artificial Intelligence (AI) Inventions (referred...

Powering KipchogeMost people interested in sports will be aware of Project 1.59 – Eluid Kipchoge's 2019 first sub-2 hour marathon. Technology played a significant part; he had an arrow-shaped...

In the recent strike out application heard on 28 July 2022, Waterrower (UK) Limited v Liking Limited (T/A Topiom) [2022] EWHC 2084 (IPEC), David Stone, sitting as deputy high court judge, considered...

As patent attorneys practicing in the healthcare sector, we are encountering more and more inventions which straddle the life and computer science fields.

Recent EPO decision T3000/19 casts doubt on how (and practically, whether) audio/video prior art available on the internet should be cited at the EPO.

BackgroundOn 28 June 2022, the UK Government published its updated conclusions to the consultation it launched in October 2021 which looked at how patents and copyright, which respectively are...

A few weeks ago, I wrote an article for Pride Month. I sat down, started to write, and the next thing I knew it was two hours later and I had eight pages of righteous anger and elaborate verbiage...

Swiss drug-maker, Novartis, sought a preliminary injunction to keep Teva and four other generics off the market for its prescription-only relapse remitting multiple sclerosis treatment, fingolimod,...

Once upon a time, in New York City, there was a riot.Not, by itself, an especially notable occurrence – New York is a pretty good place for rioting, as such places go, and as both myself and my...

Mobility-as-a-Service - how will you travel? The taxi service industry has undergone huge disruption over the last decade with the proliferation of ride-hailing apps.

In the third chapter of Neurim and Flynn's dispute with generic companies, Mr Justice Mellor refused the Claimants' application for an interim injunction against generic giant, Teva, on the basis...

This judgment concerns a claim for infringement of a UK and EU registered trademark brought in IPEC by Luen Fat Metal and Plastic Manufactory Co Ltd (the "Claimant") against Funko UK, Ltd (the...

When I was asked to prepare something for Mental Health Awareness Week with the theme of “loneliness”, my first thought was “well I don’t ever feel lonely so what could I write” and thought I would...

All usual disclaimers apply – not a doctor, not a shrink, not remotely qualified, not talking about how I know a lot of this.Loneliness sucks.

On 6 April 2022, Mr Justice Zacaroli ruled on the highly publicised case involving Ed Sheeran (and others) against Sam Chokri (and others) over Mr Sheeran's 2017 well-known hit "Shape of You.