Case Reports

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...

Jozef Frans Nelissen v OrthoApnea S.L., Vivisol B BV (UPC_CFI_376/2023) Decision of 17 January 2025[1] (ORD_598478/2023) One of the early evidence preservation orders from the UPC was granted by the...

Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft v ITCiCo Spain S.L. UPC_CFI_412/2023 Order of 9 January 2025[1] (ORD_58414/2024) BMW sought revocation of EP 2796333 belonging to ITCiCo.

The High Court’s judgment in Banham v Rogers provides a stark warning for SMEs defending intellectual property claims without professional advice. Acting as a litigant in person, the defendant misunderstood key technical issues, failed to comply with procedural requirements, and mismanaged correspondence and evidence. These cumulative errors left the court with no realistic defence to consider, leading to summary judgment and public reputational damage. The case underlines the importance of obtaining specialist IP advice at an early stage to avoid avoidable and compounding litigation risks.

The Court of Appeal clarified the necessity of formal applications to maintain confidentiality in Unified Patent Court (UPC) proceedings when disclosing ordered information. This ruling arose from a dispute involving patent infringement and confidentiality claims between EOFlow and Insulet.

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...