Case Reports

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.

Centripetal Limited v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc. UPC_CFI_636/2025 Decision of 25 July 2025 (ORD_32958/2025[1]) A recent procedural issue in an infringement case before the Local Division in Mannheim...

What happens when a European Patent Office opposition is pending at the same time as a UPC action? And what happens if the EPO and UPC reach differing conclusions on the validity?

EOFLOW v INSULET UPC_CFI_597/2024 Decision of 22 July 2025 (ORD_69390/2024[1] and ORD_69391/2024[2]) This decision, granting a decision by default against EOFLOW after EOFLOW declined to pay the...

The Intellectual Property Office (IPO) has launched a public consultation on their plans for a simplified and more cost-effective trademark opposition procedure to run alongside the existing system.

In his capacity as regular blogger for The IPKat, Partner Darren Smyth has posted on the use of dotted lines in representations of designs. This follows his participation in the conference this week...

In Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc v Genentech Inc [2013] EWCA Civ 93 the Court of Appeal dismissed the claimants’ appeal, rejecting all their arguments in respect of construction, infringement,...

AP Racing Limited v Alcon Components Limited [2013] EWPCC 3Two rival suppliers of brake calipers used in racing cars in the motorsport industry recently went head to head in the Patents County Courts.

Environmental Recycling Technologies Plc v Upcycle Holdings Ltd [2013] EWPCC 4 – 5 February 2013.SummaryThis decision of the UK Patents County Court provides insight into the differences between UK...

This case ([2013] EWPCC 2), heard in the Patents County Court, concerns designs for electric shower units. Mira (the claimant) alleged that the Glee, Joy and Smile products, supplied by the defendant...

Over the past few months two actions concerning the validity and infringement of IPCom’s European Patent EP 1,841,268 (IPCom v Nokia (Claim No: HC 10 C01233) and HTC v IPCom (Claim HC 11 C02064))...

In October 2008 a factually complex trade mark infringement and passing off case, involving the interpretation of agreements under Italian Law, came before Mr Justice Arnold (Hotel Cipriani SRL & Ors...

Leno Merken BV v Hagelkruis Beheer BV (ONEL / OMEL)A test case cooked up by Benelux attorneys called into question one of the central tenets of the CTM system - that use of a CTM in just one member...

Partner Darren Smyth has made his first blog post for The IPKat following the announcement that he had become a full member of The IPKat team.

The applicability of the obvious to try question has been a thorny issue in UK patent law for some time, and the desire for a party seeking invalidity to apply this test has pervaded many recent...

(1) J.W. Spear & Sons Ltd (2) Mattel, Inc. & (3) Mattel UK Limited -and- ZYNGA, Inc. [2012] EWHC 3345 (Ch) – 28 November 2012.Arnold J’s summary dismissal of an infringement claim based on a UK trade...

In Marks and Spencer Plc v Interflora Inc [2012] EWCA Civ 1501, the Court of Appeal has effectively killed off what was a common place practice of adducing favourable evidence of confusion (or lack...

Liversidge v (1) Owen Mumford Limited (2) Abbott Laboratories LimitedIn April 2011, the claimant commenced patent infringement proceedings in the UK Patents County Court (“PCC”) against the...

A recent decision of the High Court has brought to a conclusion a dispute between Fine & Country Limited (F&C) and Okotoks Limited (formerly Spicerhaart Limited and part of the Spicerhaart Group of...