RCDs – use of dotted lines in representations

No items found.
​
April 12, 2013
#
Elements
#
Building a Resilient Quantum Patent Portfolio: Winning the Race to File First
Table of contents
  • Toc Heading
  • Toc Heading

In his capacity as regular blogger for The IPKat, Partner Darren Smyth has posted on the use of dotted lines in representations of designs. This follows his participation in the conference this week at OHIM in Alicante to celebrate 10 years of the EU Registered Design system.

The post reflects concern that the understanding of courts and litigators may be diverging from that of practitioners over the meaning of showing a feature as a dotted line. Read Darren’s post here.

Recent Case Reports

See all Case Reports

R.262A applications required to maintain confidentiality in UPC Proceedings
03 March 2026
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.
​
Long arm not available for amended patent
02 March 2026
IMC Créations is a French company specialising in anti-theft systems for vehicles, particularly commercial vehicles. Among other things, it sells locks for the side and rear doors of commercial vehicles. Mul-T-Lock belongs to the Assa Abloy group and specialises in high security locking and access control systems, in particular pick-resistant keys and locks. IMC alleged that Mul-T-Lock’s MPV 1000 padlock infringes its unitary patent EP4153830 and the corresponding Swiss national validation.
​
Re-establishment of rights following failure to apply for a cost decision in time
02 March 2026
The dispute arises out of earlier proceedings between Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG (claimant) and Vibrantz GmbH (defendant), relating to European Patent No. 3215288. The Munich Local Division issued a substantive decision on 10 October 2025 addressing infringement and a counterclaim for revocation. Among other findings, the court partially revoked the patent in three Contracting Member States and dismissed the infringement action. In its cost decision, the court apportioned 40% of the costs to the defendant and 60% to the claimant.
​