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.

Illumina Cambridge Limited v Latvia MGI Tech SIA & Ors[2021] EWHC 57 (Pat)The case centres on Illumina's contention that MGI's DNA sequencing systems infringe their patents.

Last Friday, 16October 2020, judgment was handed down by Mr Justice Birss in the High Court, London, in the first of four technical trials listed in EIP client Optis’ UK patent litigation and...

EIP has been highly rated in the 2021 edition of Chambers & Partners UK.Researchers highlighted EIP for its “excellent patent prosecution and oppositions practice” and its “highly capable trademark...

Litigation solicitors Tom Brazier and Catherine Howell along with patent attorneys Robert Barker, Tim Belcher, and Felix Hall have all been ranked as “Rising Stars” in the 2020 edition of IP Stars...

The Enlarged Board of Appeal at the European Patent Office has now provided its opinion in G3/19 abandoning the interpretation of Article 53 (b) EPC given in previous decision G2/12.

Article 83 EPC (Sufficiency) requires a European patent to disclose the invention in a manner sufficiently clear and complete for it to be carried out by a person skilled in the art.

On 29 April 2020, the UKIPO published an overview report of IP trends for UK Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) and their spin-out businesses, between 1999 and 2018.

The COVID-19 outbreak is impacting people around the globe.The UK government has, like many other governments, been forced to take drastic action to curtail individuals’ movements to enforce social...

Copyright can subsist in a fabric pattern after HHJ Hacon ruled that such designs constitute a work of artistic craftmanship.In Response Clothing Ltd v Edinburgh Woollen Mill Ltd [2020] EWHC 148...

The UK leaves the EU on 31 January 2020 – but until at least the end of 2020 it will be business as usual for intellectual property rights.The Withdrawal Agreement between the EU and the UK was...

The European Union has announced that it will agree to the UK request for a further extension to the period in which the UK remains a full member of the EU (the “Article 50 period”) until 31 January...

Toshiba has become the first organisation to register a ‘motion’ trademark in the UK after submitting a multimedia file.While it has been possible to register motion marks before, submissions were...

For companies looking to begin the patenting process, when to do so, while managing costs, are common concerns. Here, Matt Jones explains how to get started in IP.

In Helsinn Healthcare S.A. et al. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., No. 17-1229, the US Supreme Court held that the assessment of whether an invention had been put “on sale”, and had therefore...

EIP is sponsoring a ChIPs networking event in support of charity Code First: Girls, aimed at helping women enter the tech industry.On Thursday 28 March ChIPs will be hosting a pub quiz in London,...