Case Reports

Meril Italy Srl and two other Meril entities v Edwards Lifesciences Corporation (revocation action UPC_CFI_255/2023 and counterclaims for revocation UPC_CFI_15/2023) Decision of 19 July 2024...

DexCom, Inc. v Abbott Laboratories and nine other Abbott entities (UPC_CFI_230/2023) Decision of 4 July 2024 (ORD_37297/2024) [1] The second decision on the merits from the UPC, following just a day...

Franz Kaldewei GmbH & Co. KG v Bette GmbH & Co. KG (UPC_CFI_7/2023) Decision of 3 July 2024 (ORD_598324/2023 [1]) concerning EP 3 375 337 B1 Franz Kaldewei GmbH & Co.

The Hague Local Division of the Court of First Instance of the UPC has recently issued two decisions concerning provisional measures involving the same parties - the Patentee Applicant, Abbott...

Toyota Motor Europe NV/SA v Neo Wireless GbmH & Co KG (UPC_CoA_79/2024) Appeal against Order no. 597664/2023[1] in case UPC_CFI_361/2023 of the Central Division, Paris seat Order of 4 June 2024...

Darren Smyth provides a summary of the first year of the UPC's operation.

BITZER Electronics A/S v Carrier Corporation (UPC_CFI_263/2023; UPC_CoA_22/2024) Order of 28 May 2024 (ORD_25123/2024)[1] Carrier Corporation is the proprietor of European Patent EP 3 414 708 valid...

Ballinno B.V. v Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA), Kinexon GmbH and Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH (UPC_CFI_151/2024) Order of 14 May 2024 (ORD_23557/2024)[1] Ballinno B.V.

Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc., Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V. v Roche Diabetes Care GmbH (UPC_CFI_589997/2023) Order of 10 May 2024 (ORD_7903/2024) [1] Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc & Tandem Diabetes Care...

Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v. expert klein GmbH, expert e-Commerce GmbH (UPC_CFI_363/2023) Order of 22 April 2024 (ORD_5343/2024)[1] Seoul Viosys sued expert klein GmbH and expert e-Commerce GmbH for...

CEAD B.V. & CEAD USA B.V. v BEGO Medical GmbH (UPC_CFI_367/2023) Order of 10 May 2024 (ORD_24708/2024)[1] The UPC is an international system in which a large number of languages may be employed, and...

VusionGroup SA (formerly SES-imagotag SA) v Hanshow UPC_CoA_1/2024 Order of 13 May 2024 (ORD_17447/2024)[1] SES-imagotag SA, which in the meantime has changed its name to VusionGroup SA, was refused...

NJOY Netherlands B.V. v Juul Labs International, Inc. (UPC_CFI_316/2023); Application for access to documents by Nicoventures Trading Limited Order dated 24 April 2024 (ORD_587436/2023)[1] NJOY...

Panasonic Holdings Corporation v. Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH & Ors (UPC_CFI_ 219/2023): Order of 30 April 2024 (ORD_14600/2024) [1] In an unusual turn of events, Panasonic successfully applied to...

F. Hoffman-La Roche AG, Roche Diabetes Care GmbH v Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc, Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V., VitalAire GmbH, Dinno Santé s.a.i., Air Liquide Healthcare Nederland B.

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...