Case Reports

Decision of 2 June 2025 (Order no. ORD_23545/2025) Ekso originally brought infringement proceedings against XSYS in respect of its EP 3 742 231 patent, relating to a method of curing photo-curable...

The Unified Patent Court has now been running for two years. To mark the occasion, we have looked at the cases and the decisions over the past two years, and share our thoughts on the current state...

Order of 25 September 2024 [1] This Order to Preserve Evidence pursuant to Art. 60 UPCA concerns a machine manufactured by the defendant that was being displayed at a 3-day trade fair.

Biolitec Holding GmbH & Co. KG v Light Guide Optics Germany GmbH and S.I.A. LIGHTGUIDE International (UPC_CoA_563/2024, APL_53716/2024) Court of Appeal Order dated 24 February 2025 [1] Background...

AGFA NV v Gucci (various entities) UPC_CFI_278/2023 Decision of 30 April 2025 (ORD_598576/2023)[1] This Decision from the Hamburg LD concerns AGFA's patent EP3388490, which relates to decorating...

Fujifilm Corporation v. Kodak GmbH, Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH (UPC_CFI_359/2023) Order of 2 April 2025 (ORD_598586/2023)[1] This decision is part of the litigation between...

Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd v Aiko Energy Germany GmbH and others Order of 14 April 2025[1] The Claimant brought proceedings on 23 December 2024 against Aiko Energy Germany and seven other solar panel...

Teleflex Life Sciences II LLC v Speed Care Mineral GmbH (UPC_CFI_701/2024 relating to EP2007811) Order of 21 February 2025 (ORD_ 68880/2024)[1] Application for preliminary injunction refused.

(UPC_CFI_16/2025) Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 22 January 2025 regarding the preserving of evidence This is a decision on the preservation...

Yellow Sphere Innovations GmbH, Erwin Härtwich v Knaus Tabbert AG UPC_CFI_50/2024 Decision of 10 April 2025 (ORD_68984/2024[1]) This decision from the Düsseldorf local division has a number of...

Emboline, Inc. v AorticLab srl (UPC_CFI_628/2024) Order of 16 April 2025 (ORD_9097/2025)[1] The LD Munich has recently provided some guidance on when security for costs will be available as well as...

Barco NV v Yealink Network Technology Co. Ltd. & Ors. (UPC_CFI_582/2024) Order of 21 March 2025 (ORD_68979/2024)[1] Barco is a company operating in the entertainment, enterprise and healthcare...

Accord Healthcare B.V. & Others v Novartis AG (UPC_CFI_6984/2024) Application to Intervene by Zentiva K.S. and Zentiva Portugal, LDA Order of 27 March 2025 (ORD_10348/2025)[1] The Claimants...

SSAB Swedish Steel GmbH & SSAB Europe Oy v Tiroler Rohre GmbH (UPC_CFI_640/2024) Orders of 10 February 2025 (Order nos. ORD_68941/2024[1] and ORD_65844/2024[2]) This is a decision on the...

biolitec Holding GmbH & Co. KG v Light Guide Optics Germany GmbH, S.I.A. LIGHTGUIDE International (UPC_CFI_714/2024) Order of 12 February 2025 (ORD_68717/2024[1]) On 20 November 2024, the Claimant...

A decision from Mr Justice Birss inAdaptive Spectrum And Signal Alignment Inc v British Telecommunications Plc[2014] EWHC 4194 has introduced additional complications for parties found to infringe a...

C‑11/13 Bayer CropScience AG v Deutsches Patent- und MarkenamtThe Court of Justice of the European Union rules that a supplementary protection certificate (SPC) can be granted in respect of a safener.

A strong brand, and trademark protection, create business value. Indeed, intellectual property can become a company’s most valuable asset. Branding in sport is big business.

The question presented in Alice was whether claims directed to a computer-implemented scheme for mitigating “settlement risk” are patent eligible under 35 U. S. C. §101.

In the latest decision of a long-running battle over use of the trademark “youview”, the High Court issued a decision, this week, that may require the £100 million internet television service to...

UK Intellectual Property law was enhanced last week when the Intellectual Property Act 2014 (IP Act) was given Royal Assent. It is expected that the IP Act’s provisions will start to come into force...

The UK Intellectual Property Office has refused to grant an SPC for a medical device, as noted in the decision BL O/141/14. Whilst those aware of the SPC legislation may not find this surprising, a...

A recent decision of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales has highlighted again the importance of the form and amount of detail shown in the views (formally called “representations”) of a design...

In Cosmetic Warriors Limited & Lush Limited v Amazon.co.uk Limited & Amazon EU SARL, Mr John Baldwin QC (sitting as deputy judge) found that the aforesaid Amazon companies (collectively referred to...

In Hearst Holdings Inc & Anor v A.V.E.L.A. Inc & Ors [2014] EWHC 439 (Ch) Mr Justice Birss held that A.V.E.L.A. Inc. and its co-defendants (together “AVELA”) have infringed Hearst Holdings Inc.

Roger Wyand QC (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) recently handed down judgment in Comic Enterprises Limited v Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation [2014] EWHC 185 (Ch).

Case law on the European Patent Office’s approach to non-technical inventions is quite a minefield. This is particularly so in relation to inventions that involve a presentation of information.

Resolution Chemicals Ltd v H Lundbeck A/S Court of Appeal (Civil Division), 29 July 2013Lundbeck’s patent for the pharmaceutical enantiomer escitalopram has been extensively litigated worldwide.

Two sets of changes to the framework for proceedings between parties in intellectual property (IP) disputes in the UK were both introduced on 1 October 2013.

Football Association Premier League Ltd v British Sky Broadcasting Ltd and others [2013] EWHC 2058 (Ch)SummaryBy way of a hearing on 16 August 2013, the Football Association Premier League (“FAPL”),...