Case Reports

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 Dyson v Dreame, the UPC Court of Appeal issued its first preliminary reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union. The referral concerns the scope of UPC jurisdiction where a non‑EU manufacturer is sued alongside an EU‑based intermediary acting as an authorised representative, and whether provisional measures may extend to non‑UPC states such as Spain. The decision places important questions about anchor defendants, intermediaries and the UPC’s long‑arm jurisdiction before the CJEU.

In Valeo v Bosch, the Paris Local Division rejected a jurisdictional challenge and confirmed a broad interpretation of Article 33(1)(b) UPCA. The court held that defendants belonging to the same corporate group may be sued together at the local division where one subsidiary is established, without requiring a direct commercial relationship between each defendant and the anchor defendant. It also confirmed that “the same alleged infringement” requires only identity of the infringed patent, even where the disputed products are not strictly identical.

The UPC Court of Appeal has clarified that where jurisdiction is based on Article 7(2) of the Brussels Regulation (place of harm), it is limited to damage occurring within UPC territory. In Keeex v Adobe, the Court set aside the Paris Local Division’s decision to hear infringement claims relating to non‑UPCA states, confirming that broader territorial reach requires satisfaction of the strict conditions under Article 71b(3).

In KeyMed v PR Medical, the Milan Local Division of the Unified Patent Court rejected a preliminary objection seeking to change the language of proceedings from English to Italian under Rule 14.2(b) RoP. Although the defendant was an Italian company and the action was brought before the Italian local division, the court held that the language protection did not apply because the alleged infringement was not confined to Italy.

IMC Créations is a French company specialising in anti-theft systems for vehicles, particularly commercial vehicles. Among other things, it sells locks for the side and rear doors of commercial vehicles. Mul-T-Lock belongs to the Assa Abloy group and specialises in high security locking and access control systems, in particular pick-resistant keys and locks. IMC alleged that Mul-T-Lock’s MPV 1000 padlock infringes its unitary patent EP4153830 and the corresponding Swiss national validation.

The dispute arises out of earlier proceedings between Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG (claimant) and Vibrantz GmbH (defendant), relating to European Patent No. 3215288. The Munich Local Division issued a substantive decision on 10 October 2025 addressing infringement and a counterclaim for revocation. Among other findings, the court partially revoked the patent in three Contracting Member States and dismissed the infringement action. In its cost decision, the court apportioned 40% of the costs to the defendant and 60% to the claimant.

It was foreseen that the requirements of the Unitary Patent Regulation (1257/2012) might result that old European patent applications (effective filing date before 1 March 2007) could be ineligible for unitary patent protection. The UPC has now confirmed the view of the EPO that this is indeed the case.

The UPC Mannheim Local Division revoked Centripetal’s patent relating to automated cyber‑event analysis, finding the claimed combination of static and machine‑learned algorithms anticipated by prior art (HAWK) and additional amendments lacking inventive step. With the patent invalidated in Germany and France, the infringement claim against Palo Alto Networks was dismissed. An appeal to the UPC Court of Appeal remains possible.

The UPC Munich Local Division invalidated Sanofi’s cabazitaxel patent, finding that Phase III clinical trial disclosures created a reasonable expectation of success—departing from the EPO’s earlier conclusion.

The UPC Court of Appeal’s November 2025 decisions in Amgen v. Sanofi and Meril v. Edwards provide the most comprehensive guidance to date on inventive step, claim construction, sufficiency, added matter, and procedural rules. The Court clarified how the “objective problem” should be formulated, reinforced the need for a clear pointer or motivation for obviousness, and aligned many principles with established EPO and national case law. The judgments also address injunctions, proportionality, costs, competence, and amendment admissibility—making them essential reading for anyone navigating UPC litigation.

Hurom v. NUC UPC-CFI_162/2024 LD Mannheim Decision of 2 October 2025

To celebrate Black History month and in keeping with the theme of ‘Saluting Our Sisters', I have chosen to write about a woman who has made enormous contributions in the field of healthcare.

The Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office has issued its decision in the combined cases G1/22 and G2/22. With this decision, the likelihood that a priority claim is valid even where...

PCI-Pal succeeded in the High Court of England & Wales in its patent dispute with Sycurio. Sycurio's patent was found invalid for obviousness.

This is the second article in our series as we celebrate Black History Month. One individual who has left a mark on the world is Lonnie Johnson, the mind behind the iconic Super Soaker.

From 1 November 2023, time limits that run from the notification of a communication by the EPO no longer will run from the date of the communication plus 10 days, but from the date that the...

Background This is a judgment on costs for a probate case, where the case law for analysing whether a communication should be considered ‘without prejudice' was discussed.

As we move through October and temperatures begin to drop, many of us will be wrapping up, adding extra layers and switching on the heaters. Here's a woman that inspired many of the modern heating...

Cook UK Limited v Boston Scientific Limited & Ors [2023] EWHC 2163 (Pat) A little over two years ago a new practice direction, called PD57AC, was issued regarding the preparation of witness...

In this article we take a look at how trade secrets and patents compare as means of protecting inventions by UK space sector businesses. Background Properly protecting intellectual property is a key...

Dr Girish Nivarti joined EIP's London office in October 2022. In this four-part series, he chronicles his first year as a trainee patent attorney.

Introduction The Barbenheimer phenomenon has broken several box-office records. Barbie has made Greta Gerwig the first solo female director to produce a $1 billion dollar film, while Christopher...

This article first appeared in WTR Daily, part of World Trademark Review, in July 2023. For further information, please go to www.worldtrademarkreview.com.

Heraeus Noblelight Ltd v First Light Lamps Ltd [2023] EWHC 1950 (Pat) (31 July 2023) Summary This case revolves around a patent infringement dispute between two specialist lamp manufacturers, Hereaus...

Over the past few years, a worldwide patent dispute has been rumbling between two giants of the renewables sector, GE and Siemens Gamesa. Although that storm has now subsided, following the recent...

The announcement this week from the UK Government of funding for new Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) schemes has had a mixed reception. It's a shame the announcement was hand-in-hand with new oil...