Case Reports

In this article we discuss two cases which address financial penalties for breach of confidentiality. Krauss-Maffei Extrusion GmbH v Troester GmbH & Co KG (UPC_CFI_181/2023) Order of 27 December 2023...

Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd v Netgear Inc & Ors (UPC_CFI_9/2023) Order of Court of Appeal on 11 January 2024 (UPC_CoA_486/2023); Appeal against ORD_588901/2023 dated 11 December 2023 Huawei sued...

Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH & Ors v Amgen Inc (UPC_CFI_1/2023) Order dated 24 January 2024 (ORD_2233/2024) The pleadings in this revocation action had progressed to the rejoinder by defendant...

Background In a dispute between Aarke AB, a Swedish company, and SodaStream Industries Ltd, an Israeli company, Aarke, as the defendant to infringement proceedings, successfully applied to change the...

For a European patent to be granted, the claims must be "clear and concise". However, some ambiguity or lack of clarity may be identified in granted claims, during infringement or invalidity...

Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH vs Mammut Sports Group AG and Mammut Sports Group GmbH Düsseldorf Local Division Order of 11 December 2023[1] Introduction Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH (in the following...

In the matter of an appeal by Ocado Innovation Limited and applications to intervene by (1) Mathys & Squire LLP and (2) Bristows (Ireland ) LLP Order of Court of Appeal dated 10 January 2024 By Order...

Order of 14 November 2023 (ORD_587064/2023) This was another successful application for preserving evidence, following those in the Oerlikon v Himson, Oerlikon v Bhagat Group, Jozef Frans Nelissen v...

Two recently published judgments from the Unified Patent Court clarify how requests for confidentiality, both in respect to parties to the proceedings and in respect of third parties, are handled.

SES-imagotag SA v Hanshow Technology Co. Ltd. and others UPC_CFI_292/2023 Order of 20 December 2023 (ORD_596193/2023)[1] SES-imagotag is the proprietor of EP 3883277, which had been opted out of the...

Panasonic Holdings Corporation v Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH & 9 Others (UPC_CFI_219/2023) Order of 8 December 2023 The Claimant argues that defendants 1, 2, and 8 based in China and 7 based in...

Fives ECL, SAS v REEL GmbH (UPC_CFI_274/2023) Order of 17 November 2023 On 8 August Fives ECL, SAS ("Fives") lodged in hard copy a claim for the determination of damages.

Astellas Insitute for Regenerative Medicine v Healios KK and Osaka Univerity (UPC_CFI_80/2023) Order of 20 November 2023 On 1 June 2023, Astellas Institute for Regenerative Medicine ("Astellas")...

10x Genomics, President & Fellows of Harvard College v Nanostring Technologies Inc and others, UPC_CFI_2/2023, Order of 5 December 2023 [1] ORD_ 577241/2023 Following the grant of a provisional...

Meril Italy srl v Edwards Life Sciences Corporation (551308/2023; UPC_CFI_255/2023) Order of 13 November 2023 (ORD_578356/2023) Background On 1 June 2023 Edwards Lifesciences Corporation ("Edwards")...

The Court of Appeal upheld the validity of Babek International Ltd’s trade mark after Iceland Foods Ltd challenged its registration. The judgment clarified that a trade mark must be a single, clearly and precisely represented sign capable of distinguishing goods or services. The court found that Babek’s mark met these requirements, rejecting arguments about lack of clarity and permissible variations. Iceland’s appeal was dismissed, affirming the trade mark’s validity and providing guidance on interpreting trade mark descriptions and representations.

Boehringer Ingelheim successfully obtained another interim injunction from the UK High Court against Dr Reddy, reinforcing its patent rights in ongoing pharmaceutical litigation. The article outlines the case details, the court’s reasoning, and what this decision means for patent enforcement in the UK.

Summary A recent EPO Boards of Appeal decision, T 0136/24, has examined the issue of "reasonable expectation of success" when the prior art discloses a protocol to an ongoing phase 3 clinical trial.

In the recent Decision T 2387/22, the Board's key message was: if you define an invention by a "relative improvement" of a known technical effect, the improvement must be expressed in "objectively...

On 2 July 2025, the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO) issued its landmark decision in case G 1/23 (Solar Cell Sealing Materials and Solar Cell Module), a ruling that has...

Jeff Gosling Limited ("JGL") sued Autochair Limited in the IPEC for a declaration of non-infringement concerning its "Apex Assist" hoist and Autochair's patent, which covers a particular set-up of a...

Bargain Busting Ltd v Shenzhen SKE Technology Co Ltd & Ors [2025] EWHC 1239 (Ch) Summary This judgment concerns an application by the first Defendant for an interim injunction to restrain the...

On April 30, 2025, the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) released a draft amendment of the Patent Examination Guidelines (for public comment), proposing further revisions to...

Following hot behind the interim injunction decisions regarding the same subject matter between AstraZeneca and Glenmark (and covered previously in this newsflash here), on 28 April 2025, the High...

AstraZeneca v Glenmark has seen the parties visiting the courts several times since the validity trial (heard in March of this year) over the past few weeks.

DW Windsor Ltd v Urbis Schreder Ltd [2025] EWHC 563 (IPEC) (14 March 2025) Summary This action involves two companies that design, manufacture and supply exterior lighting fixtures.

Babek International Ltd v Iceland Foods Ltd [2025] EWHC 547 (IPEC) https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/IPEC/2025/547.html This case concerns a trade mark held by Babek International Ltd which they...

His Honour Judge Hacon has found that Prevayl's patent for a smart bra was invalid for obviousness over two pieces of prior art. However, had the patent been valid, Whoop would be indirectly...

In T 0458/22 (which has a "B" distribution code indicating it is significant enough to be distributed to all Members of the EPO's Technical Boards of Appeal), the Board of Appeal appears to have gone...

Dainese S.p.A. v. Alpinestars S.p.A., Alpinestars Research S.p.A., Omnia Retail S.r.l., Horizon Moto 95 – Maxxess Cergy, Zund.Stoff Augsburg/Ulrich Herpich E.K., Motocard Bike S.I.