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.

The applicability of the obvious to try question has been a thorny issue in UK patent law for some time, and the desire for a party seeking invalidity to apply this test has pervaded many recent...

(1) J.W. Spear & Sons Ltd (2) Mattel, Inc. & (3) Mattel UK Limited -and- ZYNGA, Inc. [2012] EWHC 3345 (Ch) – 28 November 2012.Arnold J’s summary dismissal of an infringement claim based on a UK trade...

In Marks and Spencer Plc v Interflora Inc [2012] EWCA Civ 1501, the Court of Appeal has effectively killed off what was a common place practice of adducing favourable evidence of confusion (or lack...

Liversidge v (1) Owen Mumford Limited (2) Abbott Laboratories LimitedIn April 2011, the claimant commenced patent infringement proceedings in the UK Patents County Court (“PCC”) against the...

A recent decision of the High Court has brought to a conclusion a dispute between Fine & Country Limited (F&C) and Okotoks Limited (formerly Spicerhaart Limited and part of the Spicerhaart Group of...

In the latest Eli Lilly v HGS ruling, the Court of Appeal has found HGS antibody claims to be sufficient, given the Supreme Court has already held the claims to be capable of industrial applicability.

The Patents Court has issued another judgment expressing dissatisfaction with the CJEU’s ruling in Medeva (C-322/10). In particular, the Court has held that in order to determine if a particular...

A High Court decision last month has provided guidance on how Article 110(1) of the Community Designs Regulation 6/2002/EC, which relates to the protection of designs for component parts of complex...

Woolley v Ultimate Products Ltd[2012] EWCA Civ 1038 (26 July 2012)Upholding a decision of the High Court, the Court of Appeal considered the effect of a licence, consumer confusion “the wrong way”...

In the UK, applications to declare a UK registered design invalid can be filed at the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO), whereupon the case is decided by a Hearing Officer of the UKIPO acting...

The UK Intellectual Property Office (UK IPO) has recently published a consultation document on the proposed reform of the UK Designs Legal Framework.

A Patents County Court judgment by HHJ Birss QC in Gimex v Chill Bag provides guidance on whether the indication of the product in a registered design has any bearing when assessing validity and...

Interflora Inc & Anor v Marks and Spencer Plc & Anor [2012] EWHC 1722 (Ch)In a wider action concerning the alleged infringement of two of Interflora’s trademarks through Marks & Spencer’s use of...

On 4 July in Phillips v Mulcaire [2012] UKSC 28 the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom gave judgment on two key issues regarding the privilege against self-incrimination.

The Court of Appeal recently allowed an appeal by Budejovicky Budvar Narodni Podnik (BB), against a decision that found its “Budweiser” mark invalid following an attack by Anheuser-Busch (AB) which...