Recent cases > All
Showing
When is a managing director an accomplice to patent infringement?
Philips v Belkin UPC_CoA_534/2024, UPC_CoA_19/2025 and UPC_CoA_683/2024, decision of 3 October 2025[1] This is an appeal against a finding of infringement by Belkin of Philips’ patent relating to wireless inductive power transfer, and against...
Court of Appeal of the UPC considers post-filed experimental data irrelevant to claim construction
STEROS GPA Innovative S.L. v OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH, UPC_CoA_579/2025, order of 7 November 2025[1] STEROS, the exclusive licensee of European Patent EP4249647B1 (“EP’647”), lodged an application for provisional measures a...
Auxiliary claim requests inadmissible and indicative of likely invalidity in applications for provisional measures.
ONWARD Medical N.V. v. Niche Biomedical, Inc., UPC_CFI_693/2025 (Munich LD), decision of 17 October 2025[1] Introduction In UPC_CFI_693/2025, the Munich Local Division of the Unified Patent Court refused a patentee’s request for prelimi...
UPC continues the Mushroom Saga with decision by default
Amycel LLC v Szymon Spyra UPC_CFI_499/2024 LD The Hague Decision of 21 October 2025[1] We previously reported[2] on Amycel’s provisional injunction (PI) issued on 31 July 2024 against a Polish individual (named in earlier documents but later ...
UPC orders provisional injunction on basis of infringement by equivalents
Washtower IP B.V., Washtower B.V. v Wasombouw B.V. et al. UPC_CFI_479/2025 LD The Hague, Order of 11 September 2025[1] Washtower sought provisional injunctions against a number of defendants based on alleged infringement of their patent EP3522755, ...
No Declaration of Non-Infringement for Alternative Product
HL Display v. Black Sheep UPC_CFI_386/2024 (The Hague LD), decision of 10 October 2025 [1] Summary The Unified Patent Court rejected Black Sheep’s request for a declaration of non-infringement (DNI) for an alternative product design. The co...
UPC sets out Guidelines for Penalty Payments
Kodak v. Fujifilm (UPC CoA 699/2025, order of 14 October 2025)[1] According to Art. 82(2) UPCA and Rule 354.3 RoP, a party may be sanctioned with a recurring penalty payment, payable to the UPC, if the party does not comply with the terms of an order...
UPC takes strict approach on costs reimbursement
Insulet v. EOFlow UPC_CFI_773/2025 and UPC_CFI 774/2025 (Milan CD), decision of 15 October 2025[1] The dispute began when Insulet sought a provisional injunction against EOFlow to prevent infringement of its patent EP4201327, which relates to insul...
UPC Considers but does not decide exhaustion of rights in relation to consumables
Brita v. Aquashield UPC CFI 248/2024 (Munich LD), decision of 22 August 2025[1] UPC CFI 564/2024 (Munich LD), decision of 16 October 2025[2] Brita sued Aquashield and others for infringement of EP2387547, which Brita says protects its replaceable...
Apple Intervenes in Confidentiality Appeals: UPC Court of Appeal Allows Intervention in Ericsson and Sun Patent Trust Cases
Apple (Intervener) in Ericsson v. AsusTek and Apple (Intervener) in Sun Patent Trust v. Vivo UPC_CoA_631/2025[1], UPC_CoA_632/2025[2], UPC_CoA_755/2025[3], and UPC_CoA_757/2025[4] – Orders of 23 September 2025 In a cluster of orders issued on...
UPC Infringement Actions: Is Speed Meeting Expectations?
The Expected Timeline The preamble to the Rules of Procedure sets out the lofty aim that “proceedings shall be conducted in a way which will normally allow the final oral hearing on the issues of infringement and validity at first instance to ta...
UPC Agreement Is Not EU Law, No Referrals to CJEU
expert v. Seoul Viosys, UPC_CoA_380/2025 Order of 20 August 2025 (ORD_22147/2025)[1] This order from the UPC Court of Appeal clearly states that the Court of Justice of the EU cannot be asked to interpret the UPC Agreement and Rules of Procedure. T...
Unconventional Service: igus v. Whale Technology
UPC_CFI_318/2025, decision of 5 August 2025 (ORD_34299/2025)[1] In a default judgment issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court, Whale Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. was found to have infringed European Patent EP391224...
No breach of Inspection Order by Respondent who refused access
Centripetal Limited v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc. UPC_CFI_636/2025 Decision of 25 July 2025 (ORD_32958/2025[1]) A recent procedural issue in an infringement case before the Local Division in Mannheim has highlighted the importance of precision when r...
Edwards v Meril – The Interaction of Parallel UPC and EPO Proceedings
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v. Meril Lifesciences PVT Limited et al. (UPC_CFI_380/2023) Decision of 21 July 2025 (ORD_598566/2023)[1] What happens when a European Patent Office opposition is pending at the same time as a UPC action? And what h...
The UPC expands its jurisdiction limits by granting its first UK injunction
Fujifilm Corporation v. Kodak GmbH, Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH UPC_CFI_359/2023 and UPC_CFI_365/2023 Orders of 18 July 2025 The UPC has begun to shape the contours of European patent litigation following the landmark ECJ ...
UPC grants provisional injunction and clarifies intermediary liability
Aesculap AG v Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe) (UPC_CFI_213/2025 relating to EP2892442B1) Order of 10 July 2025 (ORD_32728/2025 [1]) This Decision from the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court relates t...
Brussels LD Grants Evidence Preservation and Inspection Order in Pertuzumab Biosimilar Dispute
Genentech Inc. & F. Hoffmann – La Roche AG v Organon & Co, Organon Heist B.V. NV Organon & Shanghai Henlius Biotech Inc. (UPC_CFI_407/2025 and 408/2025) Orders dated 30 May 2025 (ORD_23125/2025 and ORD_23121/2025)[1] This concerns...
UPC Clarifies Time Limit Flexibility in Nanoval v ALD
Nanoval GmbH & Co. KG v ALD Vacuum Technologies GmbH (UPC_CFI_63/2025 relating to EP3083107) Order of 22 July 2025 (ORD_25245/2025 [1]) This Decision from the Munich Local Division of the Unified Patent Court relates to EP3083107. On 3 February...
Court of Appeal Clarifies UPC rules on decisions by default
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v Microsoft Corporation UPC_CoA_363/2025 Decision of 12 July 2025 ORD_32844/2025[1] The UPC Court of Appeal has corrected a lower court’s misunderstanding of the requirements for a decision by ...
UPC Court of Appeal Clarifies Limits on Security for Costs in Emboline v. AorticLab
In a significant ruling before the Unified Patent Court (UPC)[1], the Court of Appeal has clarified that a claimant in an infringement action cannot request security for costs from a defendant who files a counterclaim for revocation. The decision, issu...