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...

Can use by a competitor of a trademark as a keyword in an advertising service, such as Google’s AdWords service, be restricted by the proprietor of the trademark? Services such as AdWords allow...

The Patent Box reaches another milestone. On the 6 December the Government will publish the draft legislation based on the public consultation in the light of its original proposals.

In Human Genome Sciences Inc v Eli Lilly and Company [2011] UKSC 51, The UK Supreme Court overturned the High Court and Court of Appeal rulings and found that a patent met the requirement of...

The Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBoA) has ruled on the admissibility of disclaimers which disclaim subject-matter which is disclosed as an embodiment in the application as filed.

In its judgement of 18 October 2011, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has confirmed that human embryonic stem cells (hESCs) do not constitute patentable subject matter, given the ban...

The judgment of the Supreme Court in Lucasfilm v Ainsworth [2011] UKSC 39, has both confirmed earlier judgments as to when a three-dimensional item may not be protected by copyright as a work of...

In May 2011, a review, entitled “Digital Opportunity: A Review of Intellectual Property and Growth” (commonly known as “The Hargreaves Review”), was commissioned by the Government to assess whether...

A recent High Court judgement regarding Halliburton’s Patent Applications ([2011] EWHC 2508 (Pat)) signals a new development in the way the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) handles subject...

In a recent High Court judgement involving Samuel Smith and Cropton breweries the Hon Mr Justice Arnold stressed on the importance of mediation for resolving disputes quickly and cost efficiently.

A Court of Appeal judgment in Schutz v Werit has clarified the effect on claims for costs of failing to register an exclusive licence.This judgment is a continuation of an earlier judgment, reported...

This case raised the question of the proper interpretation of a medical use (“Swiss”) claim, and confirmed that they will generally be interpreted in the same way as a “specific use” second medical...

A recent judgement from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in case C-263/09P highlights the interplay between Community Trade Marks (CTM) and national rights.

One of the aspects arising from the judgment in Lundbeck v Infosint [2011] EWHC 907 (Pat) is the potentially narrow scope of prior use rights.

The law governing supplementary protection certificates (SPCs) is in theory harmonised within the EU. However, different interpretations have arisen with the result that there are presently nine...

The Patents County Court has handed down judgment ([2011 EWPCC 15) in a dispute between Albert Packaging Limited (“Albert”) and Nampak Cartons & Healthcare Limited (“Nampak”), regarding alleged...