IP Cases & Articles
Computer-implemented inventions: UPC Court of Appeal endorses COMVIK approach
The Unified Patent Court (UPC) Court of Appeal has provided highly anticipated clarity on how it will assess inventive step for computer-implemented inventions (CIIs). In the recent decision Abbott v Sinocare (UPC_CoA_901/2025), the court explicitly endorsed the European Patent Office’s…
All due care: re-establishment of rights at the UPC
There have now been a number of cases heard before courts of the UPC concerning missed time limits and subsequent requests for re-establishment of rights.
UPC cases TCL v Corning and WIRPLAST v VILPE: realistic starting point for inventive step
In November 2025 in the landmark and coordinated decisions Amgen v Sanofi (UPC_CoA_528/2024) and Meril v Edwards (UPC_CoA_464/2024) the UPC set out its definitive test for the assessment of inventive step.
UK High Court and UPC diverge: contrasting rulings in parallel infringement and revocation actions
On 18 November 2025 the UPC released its decision on an infringement action brought by Advanced Cell Diagnostics Inc , a subsidiary of Bio-Techne, against Molecular Instruments Inc. Molecular Instruments counterclaimed for the revocation of the two European patents that…
Ona Patents v Google: UPC places strong emphasis on procedural economy and a “front-loaded” approach
The Unified Patent Court (UPC)’s Düsseldorf Local Division has dismissed a direct infringement claim brought by Ona Patents against Google Ireland Ltd and Google Commerce Ltd (“Google” collectively) in respect of the French and German parts of EP2263098 , while…
Product-by-process claims at the UPC: lessons from Düsseldorf
A decision (ORD_68984/2024) from the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) provides useful guidance on how product-by-process claims are interpreted in litigation. The case concerned alleged infringement of EP3356109 B1, which relates to structural components used in…
Unified Patent Court: indirect infringement and preliminary injunctions
Two recent cases from the Munich Local Division of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) relate to indirect infringement, leading to the grant of a preliminary injunction. An interesting contrast can be seen in the extent of these injunctions, which varied…
UPC preliminary measures: no shift in burden of proof when defendant asserts EPO incorrectly construed claims
Preliminary measures, such as injunctions and seizure of goods, covering all of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) participating member states are a powerful tool for patentees. In UPC_CFI_723/2025, the court looked at where the burden of proof lies when a…
Navigating the post-Aerotel landscape: the UKIPO’s "two-implementation" approach to mixed-type inventions
The dust is beginning to settle on the landmark 2026 Supreme Court judgment in Emotional Perception AI Ltd, and we are finally seeing how the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) intends to apply the ruling in practice.
How long are the arms of the UPC? UPC Court of Appeal’s first referral to the CJEU
The idiom “the long arm of the law” refers to the ability of law enforcement to catch you, no matter how far you run, or where you hide. In the case of the UPC, that arm appears to be getting…
Double territoriality: indirect infringement under the UPC
In a recent decision (ORD_17811/2025) the Milan Central Division of the Unified Patent Court has provided important clarification on the so-called “double territoriality” requirement for indirect infringement under Article 26 of the Unified Patent Court Agreement (UPCA), confirming that this…
Page 1 of 16
Next Page