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.

Roger Wyand QC (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) recently handed down judgment in Comic Enterprises Limited v Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation [2014] EWHC 185 (Ch).

Case law on the European Patent Office’s approach to non-technical inventions is quite a minefield. This is particularly so in relation to inventions that involve a presentation of information.

Resolution Chemicals Ltd v H Lundbeck A/S Court of Appeal (Civil Division), 29 July 2013Lundbeck’s patent for the pharmaceutical enantiomer escitalopram has been extensively litigated worldwide.

Two sets of changes to the framework for proceedings between parties in intellectual property (IP) disputes in the UK were both introduced on 1 October 2013.

Football Association Premier League Ltd v British Sky Broadcasting Ltd and others [2013] EWHC 2058 (Ch)SummaryBy way of a hearing on 16 August 2013, the Football Association Premier League (“FAPL”),...

In HTC Corporation v Gemalto SA and HTC Corporation v Gemalto NV[2013] EWHC 1876 (Pat), Mr Justice Birss ruled upon the validity and infringement of two telecommunications patents concerning...

Boxing Brands Limited and (1) Sports Direct International PLC, (2) Queensberry Boxing IP Limited, (3) Sportsdirect.com Retail Limited and (4) Lillywhites Limited – 8 to 12 July 2013 – Mr Justice...

SummaryIn this High Court case ([2013] EWHC 2310 (Ch)), Birss J held that the UK high-street fashion chain Topshop committed an act of passing off when they sold T-shirts emblazoned with a photograph...

Viewers of the TV show “Dragons’ Den” might remember the now highly successful Trunki children’s ride-on suitcase which was unanimously rejected by the Dragons as a bad idea.

An online image search tool for figurative trademarks and designs could be launched under new proposals by the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM).

A recent judgment handed down by Mr Justice Birss in Sealed Air Ltd v Sharp Interpack Ltd & Anor [2013] EWPCC 23 (30 May 2013) considers the way in which technical drawings in a registered design...

Interflora Inc & Anor v Marks and Spencer Plc & Anor [2013] EWHC 1291 (Ch)On 21 May, Mr Justice Arnold handed down a lengthy judgment in the long running action between Interflora and M&S.

Swarovski-Optik KG v Leica Camera AG [2013] EWHC 1227.SummaryAt the Patents Court before Vos J, Swarovski-Optik brought patent infringement proceedings against Leica Camera, who challenged the...

Despite recent guidance, the UK High Court has deemed it necessary to refer a question to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) that seeks to clarify what is meant by a “human embryo”,...

In a guest post for the Spicy IP blog, partner Darren Smyth expands upon the issues raised in his earlier post for The IPKat about the decision of the Indian Supreme Court in denying Novartis a...