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.

In decision T1045/16, EPO Technical Board of Appeal considered whether a patent relating to virus-resistant melons met the requirements of Article 83 EPC.

At a pre-trial review (“PTR”), heard on 19 March 2021, Lord Justice Birss, sitting down from the Court of Appeal, had to decide whether an infringement case based on the doctrine of equivalents which...

Last year, the UK IPO called for views on the relationship between Artificial Intelligence (AI) and the intellectual property (IP) system. On 23 March 2021, the UK IPO published their response to the...

In the latest bout between Neurim v Mylan in this pharmaceutical patent case concerning the treatment of insomnia and what looks to be Round 5 in the court room, on 12 March 2021, the English Patents...

In its decision G1/19 (Simulations), the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the EPO has confirmed that it is business as usual when assessing the patentability of computer-implemented inventions, even when...

The UK Patent Box scheme is set to become an even more valuable tax benefit in the near future. With Chancellor Rishi Sunak's announcement of higher corporate tax rates from 2023, larger and more...

Ocado Group PLC & Anr v Raymond John McKeeve [2021] EWCA Civ 145Court of Appeal overturns first instance judge and allows application to commit solicitor for contempt of courtThis is an appeal...

IPCom GmbH v Vodafone Group plc & Ors [2021] EWCA Civ 205This case involves a dispute between IPCom, an intellectual property licensing company, and Vodafone, the well-known telecommunications...

Penhallurick v MD5 Limited [2021] EWHC 93 (IPEC) 15 February 2021This case demonstrates the importance of understanding how work undertaken for an employer shapes copyright ownership and, ironically,...

EIP has been highlighted as one of the world’s leading trademark specialists in the 2021 edition of WTR 1000.Researchers for WTR 1000, published annually by World Trademark Review, references EIP’s...

Illumina Cambridge Limited v Latvia MGI Tech SIA & Ors[2021] EWHC 57 (Pat)The case centres on Illumina's contention that MGI's DNA sequencing systems infringe their patents.

Last Friday, 16October 2020, judgment was handed down by Mr Justice Birss in the High Court, London, in the first of four technical trials listed in EIP client Optis’ UK patent litigation and...

EIP has been highly rated in the 2021 edition of Chambers & Partners UK.Researchers highlighted EIP for its “excellent patent prosecution and oppositions practice” and its “highly capable trademark...

Litigation solicitors Tom Brazier and Catherine Howell along with patent attorneys Robert Barker, Tim Belcher, and Felix Hall have all been ranked as “Rising Stars” in the 2020 edition of IP Stars...

The Enlarged Board of Appeal at the European Patent Office has now provided its opinion in G3/19 abandoning the interpretation of Article 53 (b) EPC given in previous decision G2/12.