Simon Stanes blogs for The IPKat on the Budweiser dispute
No items found.
January 1, 1970
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.
The decision concerned the battle between Anheuser-Busch and Budvar, various aspects of which have been covered in previous EIP newsflashes in August 2012, May 2011, and February 2011; and in an EIP-authored article for US journal Intellectual Property Counselor.
Simon’s post is a collaboration with The IPKat’s lead blogger Jeremy Phillips, and can be read here.
Recent Case Reports
Court of Appeal focuses on the technical effect to determine added matter
30 September 2026
The Court of Appeal provided guidance on their approach to assessing added subject matter, highlighting that the technical effect underlying the invention and how the claimed and unclaimed features contribute thereto is central to the analysis.
Court of Appeal affirms interpretation of product-by-process features in claims, and clarifies applicable law pre-June 2023
29 September 2026
The Court of Appeal confirmed that product-by-process features in a product claim limit the claim only where the specified process imparts characteristics that can be achieved solely by that process. It also clarified the law applicable to acts occurring before 1 June 2023, holding that UPC law may apply to ongoing infringement for injunctive relief, whereas damages for acts completed before that date are governed by national law, and that claims for provisional protection remain governed by national law.
Appeal reveals tricky deadlines for orders contained in decisions
29 September 2026
The Court of Appeal held that where a “privileged order” under Rule 220(1)(c), such as an order relating to the production of evidence under Article 59 UPCA and Rule 190 RoP, is contained within a decision on the merits, a 15 day appeal deadline for that order applies, separate from the substantive appeal deadline. Appeals challenging such orders after that deadline are inadmissible, and parties cannot circumvent the appeal rules by re-filing substantially the same request in the appeal proceedings.