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.

A recent case in the English courts raises questions that could affect the way global business is performed over the internet. Since 1998, databases have been protected in the UK under a ‘sui...

A few years ago, Google decided to allow businesses in the US and in the European Union to buy Google AdWords consisting of their competitors' registered trademarks so that anyone can bid on a...

A recent UK court decision has concluded that, in appropriate circumstances, post-sale confusion could be used to demonstrate a likelihood of confusion when potential trademark infringement was being...

It seems a single EU patent, covering all the EU Member States other than Spain and Italy, may become a reality. How this would be litigated, however, remains unclear.

A recent High Court decision demonstrates that a post-grant amendment may still be rejected in the UK at the discretion of the court. The amendment was rejected as even though the scope of the...

Two of the numerous factors to be weighed when deciding on UK or European Community (CTM) registration are: intent to use: still a prerequisite for a valid UK application, although not a CTM;speed of...

It is not uncommon for counterfeit goods to pass through the EU in transit to their final destination. This raises the question of whether such goods fall within the jurisdiction of the EU, and can...

Advocate General Verica Trstenjak recently gave her opinion on questions referred to the European Court of Justice by the UK Court of Appeal regarding the latest dispute in the complex on-going...

This appeal decision demonstrates the importance of considering potential patent amendments early in litigious proceedings. The appeal was concerned with two patents which were part of a larger...

Simon Stanes, the head of EIP Brands, has posted as a guest blogger for The IPKat following the cancellation of two CTM registrations owned by the makers of Innocent smoothies.

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.

To mark Rare Disease Day 2012, Darren Smyth's latest IPKat post has a topical theme.Darren highlights the pharmaceutical industry's reluctance to develop treatments for rare diseases where there is...

The biggest changes to US patent law since 1952 have recently been signed into law by president Obama, in the form of the America Invents Act.