Case Reports

Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v Microsoft Corporation (UPC_COA_563/2024; APL_53716/2024) Appeal Order of 10 February 2025 (APL_68946/2024)[1] The Appellant ("Suinno") filed an...

AYLO PREMIUM LTD v DISH Technologies L.L.C. (UPC_CFI_198/2024) Order of 18 February 2025 (Order no. ORD_59528/2024[1]) Written by Emily Williams The Central Division (Paris Seat) has rejected a...

Imbox Protection A/S v. Brunngård Group AB & Footbridge Group AB (UPC_CFI_527/2024) Order of 17 February 2025 (Order no. ORD_68981/2024[1] relating to EP 2 276 862) The Stockholm Local Division of...

air up group GmbH v Guangzhou Aiyun Yanwu Technology Co., Ltd. UPC_CFI_508/2023 and UPC_CFI_509/2023 Decisions by default of 9 January 2025 (ORD_1359/2025[1] and ORD_1378/2025[2]) The claimant...

Syngenta Limited v Sumi Agro Limited and Sumi Agro Europe Limited (UPC_CFI_201/2024) Order of 12 December 2024 (ORD_65555/2024[1]) As we reported,[2] Syngenta obtained a provisional injunction...

Plant-e v Arkyne UPC_CFI_239/2023 Decision of 22 November 2024 (ORD_598516/2023 [infringement] ORD_598513/2023 [counterclaim for revocation]) The first claimant Plant-e Knowledge B.V.

Pirelli Tyre S.P.A. v Tianjin Kingtyre Group Co., Ltd. and Kingtyre Deutschland Gmbh. (UPC_CFI _650/2024 relating to EP2519412B1) Pirelli Tyre S.P.A. v Sichuan Yuanxing Rubber Co., Ltd.

NanoString Technologies Europe Limited v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (UPC_CFI_252/2023) Decision of 17 December 2024 (Order no. ORD_56957/2024 relating to EP 2 794 928 B1) Introduction...

Valeo v Magna (UPC_CFI_368/2024 relating to EP3320604 and UPC_CFI_347/2024 relating to EP3320602) Orders of 31 October 2024 (ORD_56534/2024[1] and ORD_56545/2024[2]) Valeo Electrification sought...

KINEXON SPORTS & MEDIA GMBH vs BALLINNO B.V. (UPC_CFI_230/2024, Revocation Action No. ACT_27358/2024) Order of the CFI of the UPC Paris Central Division dated 14 October 2024 (ORD_47273/2024)[1] The...

SodaStream Industries Ltd. v Aarke AB (UPC_CFI_373/2023) Decision of 31 October 2024 (ORD_598499/2023) [1] concerning EP 1 793 917 Sodastream (in the following "Claimant") and Aarke (in the following...

NanoString Technologies Europe Limited v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (UPC 252/2023) Decision of 17 October, 2024 (ORD_598480/2023[1]) This decision from the Central Division in Munich...

Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Belkin GmbH, Belkin Limited, Belkin International, Inc. (UPC_CFI_390/2023) Decision of 13 September 2024 (ORD_598464/2023)[1] Philips asserted their patent EP 2867997[2],...

NEC Corporation v TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd. & Others (UPC_CFI_153/2024) Order dated 2 October 2024 (ORD_46842/2024)[1] NEC Corporation ("NEC") sued seven companies within the TCL...

Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v Asustek Computer Inc, Arvato Netherlands B.V., Digital River Ireland Ltd. (UPC_CFI_317/2024) Decision of 15 October 2024 (ORD_52116/2024[1]) This judgment relates to...

A High Court decision highlighting the consequences of inadequate disclosure searches under PD57AD and reaffirming that costs orders are final, even where later failures come to light.

In Valeo v Bosch, the Paris Local Division rejected a jurisdictional challenge and confirmed a broad interpretation of Article 33(1)(b) UPCA. The court held that defendants belonging to the same corporate group may be sued together at the local division where one subsidiary is established, without requiring a direct commercial relationship between each defendant and the anchor defendant. It also confirmed that “the same alleged infringement” requires only identity of the infringed patent, even where the disputed products are not strictly identical.

The High Court’s judgment in Banham v Rogers provides a stark warning for SMEs defending intellectual property claims without professional advice. Acting as a litigant in person, the defendant misunderstood key technical issues, failed to comply with procedural requirements, and mismanaged correspondence and evidence. These cumulative errors left the court with no realistic defence to consider, leading to summary judgment and public reputational damage. The case underlines the importance of obtaining specialist IP advice at an early stage to avoid avoidable and compounding litigation risks.

The Court of Appeal clarified the necessity of formal applications to maintain confidentiality in Unified Patent Court (UPC) proceedings when disclosing ordered information. This ruling arose from a dispute involving patent infringement and confidentiality claims between EOFlow and Insulet.

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...