Case Reports

AIM Sport Development AG v TGI Sport Suomi Oy & Ors. (UPC_CFI_214/2023)[1] Order of 11 February 2025 (ORD_6926/2025) The Helsinki Local Division considered AIM Sport Development AG's ("AIM Sport")...

SSAB Swedish Steel GmbH & SSAB Europe Oy v Tiroler Rohre GmbH (UPC_CFI_640/2024) Orders of 10 February 2025 (Order nos. ORD_68941/2024[1] and ORD_65844/2024[2]) This is a decision on the...

biolitec Holding GmbH & Co. KG v Light Guide Optics Germany GmbH, S.I.A. LIGHTGUIDE International (UPC_CFI_714/2024) Order of 12 February 2025 (ORD_68717/2024[1]) On 20 November 2024, the Claimant...

Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v Microsoft Corporation (UPC_COA_563/2024; APL_53716/2024) Appeal Order of 10 February 2025 (APL_68946/2024)[1] The Appellant ("Suinno") filed an...

AYLO PREMIUM LTD v DISH Technologies L.L.C. (UPC_CFI_198/2024) Order of 18 February 2025 (Order no. ORD_59528/2024[1]) Written by Emily Williams The Central Division (Paris Seat) has rejected a...

Esko-Graphics Imaging GmbH v XSYS Germany GmbH, XSYS Prepress N.V, XSYS Italia S.r.l. Order of 10 February 2025 (UPC_CFI_483/2024)[1] The Defendants filed a preliminary objection arguing that the UPC...

GXD-Bio Corporation v Myriad Genetics S.r.l and others[1] (UPC_CFI_437/2024) Order of 14 February 2025 (ORD_68782/2024)[2] The claimant brought an action before the UPC Local Division in Munich...

Advanced Bionics and two other Advanced Bionics entities v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH (Revocation action UPC_CFI_338 /2023 and counterclaim for revocation UPC_CFI_410/2023) Decision of...

Imbox Protection A/S v. Brunngård Group AB & Footbridge Group AB (UPC_CFI_527/2024) Order of 17 February 2025 (Order no. ORD_68981/2024[1] relating to EP 2 276 862) The Stockholm Local Division of...

Order of 28 February 2025 (Order no. ORD_3085/2025)[1] (UPC_CFI_483/2024) The Claimant had brought a claim against the Defendants for infringement of EP 3 742 231 ("the Patent"), relating to...

Lionra Technologies Ltd. v Cisco Systems GmbH and Cisco Systems, Inc. (UPC_CFI _58/2024 relating to EP2201740B1) Decision of 19 February 2025 (ORD_65550/2024 [1]) This Decision from the Hamburg Local...

UPC_CFI_224/2024 & UPC_CFI_786/2024 Decision of 27 January 2025 (Order no. ORD_4250/2025, Order no. ORD_4288/2025) The UPC ruled that the Claimant in an infringement proceeding must provide security...

Swarco Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme GmbH v. Strabag Infrastructure & Safety Solutions GmbH, Chainzone Technology (Foshan) Co., Ltd (UPC_CFI_33/2024) Decision of 15 January 2024 (Order no.

Local Division Düsseldorf Order dated 14th January 2025 UPC_CFI_16/2024, ACT_2379/2024, ORD_63035/2024[1] Infringement Action and Counterclaim for Revocation Background There is a procedural history...

air up group GmbH v Guangzhou Aiyun Yanwu Technology Co., Ltd. UPC_CFI_508/2023 and UPC_CFI_509/2023 Decisions by default of 9 January 2025 (ORD_1359/2025[1] and ORD_1378/2025[2]) The claimant...

In Omnipharm Limited v Merial [2013] EWCA Civ 2, the Court of Appeal of England and Wales (CA) upheld a first instance decision to revoke one of Merial’s patents on grounds of insufficiency.

Darren Smyth’s latest IPKat post concerns the recent decision on a preliminary point in Resolution Chemicals Ltd v H. Lundbeck A/S, and Lundbeck’s SPC for escitalopram.

At a recent conference in Alicante to mark the tenth anniversary of the EU Registered Community Design, it was proposed by attendee Sir Robin Jacob to look at ways of improving the system.

The Intellectual Property Office (IPO) has launched a public consultation on their plans for a simplified and more cost-effective trademark opposition procedure to run alongside the existing system.

In his capacity as regular blogger for The IPKat, Partner Darren Smyth has posted on the use of dotted lines in representations of designs. This follows his participation in the conference this week...

In Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc v Genentech Inc [2013] EWCA Civ 93 the Court of Appeal dismissed the claimants’ appeal, rejecting all their arguments in respect of construction, infringement,...

AP Racing Limited v Alcon Components Limited [2013] EWPCC 3Two rival suppliers of brake calipers used in racing cars in the motorsport industry recently went head to head in the Patents County Courts.

Environmental Recycling Technologies Plc v Upcycle Holdings Ltd [2013] EWPCC 4 – 5 February 2013.SummaryThis decision of the UK Patents County Court provides insight into the differences between UK...

This case ([2013] EWPCC 2), heard in the Patents County Court, concerns designs for electric shower units. Mira (the claimant) alleged that the Glee, Joy and Smile products, supplied by the defendant...

Over the past few months two actions concerning the validity and infringement of IPCom’s European Patent EP 1,841,268 (IPCom v Nokia (Claim No: HC 10 C01233) and HTC v IPCom (Claim HC 11 C02064))...

In October 2008 a factually complex trade mark infringement and passing off case, involving the interpretation of agreements under Italian Law, came before Mr Justice Arnold (Hotel Cipriani SRL & Ors...

Leno Merken BV v Hagelkruis Beheer BV (ONEL / OMEL)A test case cooked up by Benelux attorneys called into question one of the central tenets of the CTM system - that use of a CTM in just one member...

Partner Darren Smyth has made his first blog post for The IPKat following the announcement that he had become a full member of The IPKat team.

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...