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 his latest IPKat post, Darren Smyth “despairs” at the judgment by the Indian Supreme Court in the recent Glivec decision, refusing the patent application directed to imatinib mesylate in beta...

Darren Smyth’s latest IPKat post is about the recent case of Nestec SA & Ors v Dualit Ltd & Ors concerning Nespresso coffee makers and their coffee capsules.

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.