Case Reports

Hurom v. NUC UPC-CFI_162/2024 LD Mannheim Decision of 2 October 2025

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.

Simon Stanes, the head of EIP Brands, has posted as a guest blogger for The IPKat following the cancellation of two CTM registrations owned by the makers of Innocent smoothies.

Simon Stanes, the head of EIP Brands, has contributed to a post on The IPKat blog following a ruling by the General Court in what could be the end to the long-running Budweiser trademark dispute.

To mark Rare Disease Day 2012, Darren Smyth's latest IPKat post has a topical theme.Darren highlights the pharmaceutical industry's reluctance to develop treatments for rare diseases where there is...

The biggest changes to US patent law since 1952 have recently been signed into law by president Obama, in the form of the America Invents Act.