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...

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.

Centripetal Limited v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc. UPC_CFI_636/2025 Decision of 25 July 2025 (ORD_32958/2025[1]) A recent procedural issue in an infringement case before the Local Division in Mannheim...

Last year, the UK IPO called for views on the relationship between Artificial Intelligence (AI) and the intellectual property (IP) system. On 23 March 2021, the UK IPO published their response to the...

In the latest bout between Neurim v Mylan in this pharmaceutical patent case concerning the treatment of insomnia and what looks to be Round 5 in the court room, on 12 March 2021, the English Patents...

In its decision G1/19 (Simulations), the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the EPO has confirmed that it is business as usual when assessing the patentability of computer-implemented inventions, even when...

The UK Patent Box scheme is set to become an even more valuable tax benefit in the near future. With Chancellor Rishi Sunak's announcement of higher corporate tax rates from 2023, larger and more...

Ocado Group PLC & Anr v Raymond John McKeeve [2021] EWCA Civ 145Court of Appeal overturns first instance judge and allows application to commit solicitor for contempt of courtThis is an appeal...

IPCom GmbH v Vodafone Group plc & Ors [2021] EWCA Civ 205This case involves a dispute between IPCom, an intellectual property licensing company, and Vodafone, the well-known telecommunications...

Penhallurick v MD5 Limited [2021] EWHC 93 (IPEC) 15 February 2021This case demonstrates the importance of understanding how work undertaken for an employer shapes copyright ownership and, ironically,...

EIP has been highlighted as one of the world’s leading trademark specialists in the 2021 edition of WTR 1000.Researchers for WTR 1000, published annually by World Trademark Review, references EIP’s...

Illumina Cambridge Limited v Latvia MGI Tech SIA & Ors[2021] EWHC 57 (Pat)The case centres on Illumina's contention that MGI's DNA sequencing systems infringe their patents.

Last Friday, 16October 2020, judgment was handed down by Mr Justice Birss in the High Court, London, in the first of four technical trials listed in EIP client Optis’ UK patent litigation and...

EIP has been highly rated in the 2021 edition of Chambers & Partners UK.Researchers highlighted EIP for its “excellent patent prosecution and oppositions practice” and its “highly capable trademark...

Litigation solicitors Tom Brazier and Catherine Howell along with patent attorneys Robert Barker, Tim Belcher, and Felix Hall have all been ranked as “Rising Stars” in the 2020 edition of IP Stars...

The Enlarged Board of Appeal at the European Patent Office has now provided its opinion in G3/19 abandoning the interpretation of Article 53 (b) EPC given in previous decision G2/12.

Article 83 EPC (Sufficiency) requires a European patent to disclose the invention in a manner sufficiently clear and complete for it to be carried out by a person skilled in the art.

On 29 April 2020, the UKIPO published an overview report of IP trends for UK Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) and their spin-out businesses, between 1999 and 2018.