Case Reports

Amgen Inc v Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH & Ors Order of 13 October 2023 (Order ref ORD_580110/2023) [1] Both Amgen and Sanofi-Aventis appealed an order [2] in which an extension of the deadline...

The UPC has published its third decision to preserve evidence (following the related Orders of 13 and 14 June 2023 in Oerlikon Textile GMBH & CO KG v Himson Engineering Private Limited and v Bhagat...

On the same day that the decision granting 10x Genomics a provisional injunction against NanoString on the basis of the unitary patent EP4108782 was announced (19 September 2023), there also took...

Ocado Innovation Limited v. Autostore AS Order of 11 September 2023[1] (Order ref ORD_571090/2023) Ocado filed an infringement action against Autostore on 2 June 2023 in the Milan local division.

Amgen Inc v Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH & Ors Order of 29 August 2023 (Order ref ORD_566193/2023)[1] This case arises from a difference of date of service on multiple defendants, and thus raises...

The UPC Local Division in Munich handed down a decision on 19 September 2023 following a hearing over two days on 5/6 September 2023, granting a provisional injunction against NanoString to restrain...

A judge of the Central court in Munich has recently considered a request by a third party for access to written pleadings and evidence under Rule 262.1(b) in two cases.

Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v. Meril GmbH and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. Order of 23 August 2023 Edwards Lifesciences Corporation (Claimant in the main action) is the proprietor of EP3646825,...

Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH & Others v Amgen Inc - Order of 24 August 2023 Background On the opening day of UPC, 1 June 2023, Amgen sued Sanofi for infringement of EP 3,666,797 in the Munich...

Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH & Others v Amgen Inc - Order of 24 August 2023 Background On the opening day of UPC, 1 June 2023, Amgen sued Sanofi for infringement of EP 3,666,797 in the Munich...

The UPC is a new legal system, and it is not to be expected that its terminology should follow any single national system. When we look at the UPC Agreement itself, and the Rules of Procedure and the...

Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v. Meril GmbH and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. Order of 1 August 2023 Edwards Lifesciences Corporation (Claimant in the main action) is the proprietor of EP3646825,...

myStromer AG v Revolt Zycling AG, Order of 22 June 2023 and Order of 30 June 2023 [1] The UPC - Düsseldorf Local Division - has issued its first ex parte provisional injunction only recently...

Oerlikon Textile GMBH & CO KG v Himson Engineering Private Limited, Order of 13 June 2023 Oerlikon Textile GMBH & CO KG v Bhagat Group, Order of 14 June 2023 Just two weeks after the Unified Patent...

The EPO has recently added ‘Requests for unitary effect' to its Statistics & Trends Centre. The Statistics & Trends Centre provides a dashboard that now gives information about requests for unitary...

The Court of Appeal upheld the validity of Babek International Ltd’s trade mark after Iceland Foods Ltd challenged its registration. The judgment clarified that a trade mark must be a single, clearly and precisely represented sign capable of distinguishing goods or services. The court found that Babek’s mark met these requirements, rejecting arguments about lack of clarity and permissible variations. Iceland’s appeal was dismissed, affirming the trade mark’s validity and providing guidance on interpreting trade mark descriptions and representations.

Boehringer Ingelheim successfully obtained another interim injunction from the UK High Court against Dr Reddy, reinforcing its patent rights in ongoing pharmaceutical litigation. The article outlines the case details, the court’s reasoning, and what this decision means for patent enforcement in the UK.

Summary A recent EPO Boards of Appeal decision, T 0136/24, has examined the issue of "reasonable expectation of success" when the prior art discloses a protocol to an ongoing phase 3 clinical trial.

In the recent Decision T 2387/22, the Board's key message was: if you define an invention by a "relative improvement" of a known technical effect, the improvement must be expressed in "objectively...

On 2 July 2025, the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO) issued its landmark decision in case G 1/23 (Solar Cell Sealing Materials and Solar Cell Module), a ruling that has...

Jeff Gosling Limited ("JGL") sued Autochair Limited in the IPEC for a declaration of non-infringement concerning its "Apex Assist" hoist and Autochair's patent, which covers a particular set-up of a...

Bargain Busting Ltd v Shenzhen SKE Technology Co Ltd & Ors [2025] EWHC 1239 (Ch) Summary This judgment concerns an application by the first Defendant for an interim injunction to restrain the...

"Added matter" objections are a common and often frustrating hurdle in European patent prosecution. The European Patent Office (EPO) takes a particularly strict stance on claim amendments, especially...

A key question for those working in a fast-paced and complex industry such as quantum technology is when to patent any technological developments.

On April 30, 2025, the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) released a draft amendment of the Patent Examination Guidelines (for public comment), proposing further revisions to...

Following hot behind the interim injunction decisions regarding the same subject matter between AstraZeneca and Glenmark (and covered previously in this newsflash here), on 28 April 2025, the High...

The UN says we are in a year of quantum, celebrating 100 years since the development of quantum mechanics. While quantum computing is often the main talking point, the other areas of quantum tech,...

AstraZeneca v Glenmark has seen the parties visiting the courts several times since the validity trial (heard in March of this year) over the past few weeks.

Introduction Innovative space sector businesses generate IP all the time. But it can be difficult to appreciate the range of IP being generated, or the value of that IP.

DW Windsor Ltd v Urbis Schreder Ltd [2025] EWHC 563 (IPEC) (14 March 2025) Summary This action involves two companies that design, manufacture and supply exterior lighting fixtures.