Case Reports

The UPC's Düsseldorf Local Division found that Wessper's cartridges indirectly infringed Brita's patent, and that a narrower claim combination can turn a consumable into an essential element.

In Ericsson v ASUSTeK, the Milan Local Division refused a provisional measures application filed 21 months into the case, finding continuing infringement and rising losses alone do not establish urgency.

The UPC Local Division Milan revoked Cardo's provisional injunction against Reso, ruling its helmet intercom products fall outside the scope of EP4240194, neither literally nor by equivalence.

The Hamburg Local Division let Nixu pursue US-based Infoblox in the UPC for Germany, France and Finland, but threw out the UK claim. To reach a non-UPC territory through an anchor defendant, a claimant must plead joint infringement there.

The Helsinki Local Division found AIM's TV-advertising patent valid but not infringed by TGI, and with no Court of Appeal ruling on equivalence yet, adopted the four-step test both sides put forward, the UPC following the parties' lead.

In Agathon v Intercom, the UPC's Milan Local Division confirmed that statements made during EPO prosecution are not binding but can offer low-weight guidance on the skilled person's view — here narrowing 'abuts' against the patentee.

In Otec v Steros, the UPC's Dusseldorf Local Division revoked an ex parte inspection order after the applicant failed to sue on the merits in time, ordering all preserved evidence returned and destroyed.

On 2 June 2026 the UPC Court of Appeal overturned the Mannheim Local Division's infringement findings against Kodak in both Germany and the UK, on a prior user right in Germany, and on lack of defendant liability in the UK, while upholding the validity of EP 3511174 as amended and laying down a structured framework for exercising jurisdiction over non-EU designations.

These Decisions from the Local Division of the Unified Patent Court in Milan relate to EP2519412 and EP3519207. The Applicant, Pirelli Tyre S.P.A. ("Pirelli") brought two separate infringement actions following respective seizure orders against Tianjin Kingtyre Group Co., Ltd ("Kingtyre") and Sichuan Yuanxing Rubber Co., Ltd. ("SYR"), in view of the exhibition of allegedly infringing products by the defendants at the "International Motorcycle Exhibition" ("EICMA") between 5 and 10 November 2024.

WIRPLAST v VILPE (UPC Munich, April 2026): a roof-fan disclosure was a fair starting point, but the patent for a through-roof ventilation pipe with a spirit level survived; the skilled person would not have leaped.

The UPC Court of Appeal ruled that it lacks jurisdiction to assess costs applications and confirmed they must be filed at the Court of First Instance, rejecting a transfer request in Rematec v Europe Forestry.

In Emporia v Seoul Viosys, the UPC Central Division confirmed that the revocation of an independent claim does not automatically affect the validity of unchallenged claims. The decision underscores the importance of challenging all relevant claims where full patent revocation is sought.

In Rematec v Europe Forestry, the UPC Court of Appeal overturned the Mannheim Local Division’s revocation of the patent and, applying Article 75(1) UPCA, issued a final decision on both validity and infringement despite no infringement finding at first instance. The Court adopted a narrower, description‑led approach to claim interpretation, confirmed the patent’s validity, found infringement, and granted final remedies without referring the case back to the Court of First Instance.

In Syntorr v Arthrex, the UPC Court of Appeal clarified that while litigation insurance is not itself a form of security under Rule 158 RoP, it is a relevant factor when deciding whether security for costs should be ordered at all. By failing to consider the claimant’s insurance policy, the Munich Local Division wrongly exercised its discretion. The Court set aside the €2 million security order and confirmed that insurance can mitigate concerns about cost recoverability.

In Fives v REEL, the Hamburg Local Division of the UPC dismissed a standalone damages action despite prior findings of infringement. Although the UPC was competent to assess damages, the court held that national law applied because the relevant events pre‑dated the UPC’s entry into force. Applying German law, the court found that the claimant had not proven causation or lost profit, highlighting the demanding evidentiary burden for price‑reduction damages claims and the importance of substantiating counterfactual tender outcomes.

In a clash of a Cantonese restaurant called CHINA TANG and a Chinese takeaway also called CHINA TANG, the former succeeds.Background The Claimants in this case run a Cantonese restaurant called...

Following on from Mr Justice Meade's judgment on the preliminary issues in the re-match between Neurim (and Flynn) and Generics (UK) Ltd (now trading as Viatris but formerly Mylan) concerning a...

A design, which is no doubt familiar to most readers, has been held invalid by Recorder Douglas Campbell QC in a recent IPEC decision (here).BackgroundThe Claimant, Mr Erol, brought a claim against...

This judgment concerns a three-fold application by the Defendants (together "KnitPro") brought in the context of a long running trade mark dispute relating to knitting needles.

With a back catalogue to rival Bob Dylan, the latest development in the Neurim – Mylan battle over Mylan's generic melatonin product saw Mr Justice Meade referee the trial of preliminary issues in...

We reported last year that the Unitary Patent and Unified Patent Court (UPC) were progressing. The main hurdle left to clear was sufficient countries ratifying the Protocol on the Provisional...

In Fleur Tehrani v Hamilton Bonaduz AG & Ors [2021] EWHC 3457 (IPEC), heard before the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court, ("IPEC") the court conducted an assessment of the validity of a patent...

BackgroundOriginal Beauty (“Claimants”) alleged infringement of their unregistered design rights under UK and EU law and that the defendants had passed off their brand “Oh Polly” (“Defendants”) as a...

The Court of Appeal has upheld the first instance judgment in Penhallurick v MD5 Limited and agreed that MD5 Limited ("MD5") still owns the copyright of the works in this dispute; and thus dismissing...

On 11 February 2021, the High Court ruled in favour of the Duchess of Sussex, Meghan Markle, in her dispute against Associated Newspapers over the publication of a number of articles in ‘The Mail on...

IntroductionThe recent decision of the UK Supreme Court in the Unwired Planet v Huawei, and Conversant v Huawei & ZTE appeals which affirmed the UK court's jurisdiction to determine global FRAND...

Neurim has been allowed to continue its case in the UK, in which it is seeking an injunction against Defendant Mylan for selling its generic melatonin product, which Neurim says infringes its...

The UK High Court maintained "external eyes only" protection for a class of documents central to the Claimants' loss of profits claim in an inquiry as to damages.

Columbia Pictures, Disney, Netflix & Ors v British Telecommunications, Sky, Virgin & Ors [2021] EWHC 2799 (Ch)The applicants (the "Studios") are members of popular studio groups who own the copyright...

Dear young Vanessa,I know you’re about to undergo another operation, in fact I’ve lost count. You were born with a congenital deformity, despite having many surgeries, it’s a long- term condition but...