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

A consultation has been announced by HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) seeking the views of patent holders and interested parties on proposed changes to the UK Patent Box scheme.

After years of debate, the European Parliament, European Council and European Commission have reached an agreement in relation to a new European Union trade mark reform package, which will provide a...

Alibaba is the largest e-commerce platform in China, and one of the biggest in the world. Its co-founder, Jack Ma, is the richest man in China; he is often compared to Bill Gates and Steve Jobs by...

In a recent decision of the UK Intellectual Property Office, an applicant for a UK patent was allowed to file a response to an examination report (“office action”) more than 18 months after the due...

In August 2013, I produced a short commentary regarding the decision of Mr Recorder Meade QC in SDL Hair Ltd v Next Row Ltd & Ors [2013] EWPCC 31, where Mr Meade was faced with the question of...

A decision from Mr Justice Birss inAdaptive Spectrum And Signal Alignment Inc v British Telecommunications Plc[2014] EWHC 4194 has introduced additional complications for parties found to infringe a...

C‑11/13 Bayer CropScience AG v Deutsches Patent- und MarkenamtThe Court of Justice of the European Union rules that a supplementary protection certificate (SPC) can be granted in respect of a safener.

A strong brand, and trademark protection, create business value. Indeed, intellectual property can become a company’s most valuable asset. Branding in sport is big business.

The question presented in Alice was whether claims directed to a computer-implemented scheme for mitigating “settlement risk” are patent eligible under 35 U. S. C. §101.

In the latest decision of a long-running battle over use of the trademark “youview”, the High Court issued a decision, this week, that may require the £100 million internet television service to...

UK Intellectual Property law was enhanced last week when the Intellectual Property Act 2014 (IP Act) was given Royal Assent. It is expected that the IP Act’s provisions will start to come into force...

The UK Intellectual Property Office has refused to grant an SPC for a medical device, as noted in the decision BL O/141/14. Whilst those aware of the SPC legislation may not find this surprising, a...

A recent decision of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales has highlighted again the importance of the form and amount of detail shown in the views (formally called “representations”) of a design...

In Cosmetic Warriors Limited & Lush Limited v Amazon.co.uk Limited & Amazon EU SARL, Mr John Baldwin QC (sitting as deputy judge) found that the aforesaid Amazon companies (collectively referred to...

In Hearst Holdings Inc & Anor v A.V.E.L.A. Inc & Ors [2014] EWHC 439 (Ch) Mr Justice Birss held that A.V.E.L.A. Inc. and its co-defendants (together “AVELA”) have infringed Hearst Holdings Inc.