Category: Unified Patent Court
-
UPC Court of Appeal makes UK judge feel even better about his decision: Alexion v. Amgen & Samsung Bioepis
Mr Justice Meade of the High Court of Justice for England & Wales would have reached the same decision anyway, but likes the fact that the UPC CoA interpreted the claim language in the same way.
-
UPC Roundup (1 week): second medical use; evidence gathering through on-site experiments; various new cases
This is a summary of developments in and around the Unified Patent Court (UPC) in the week since our May 10, 2025 UPC Roundup. Only a few noteworthy things happened. 1. CoA: confidentiality concerns don’t warrant splitting up case In Corning v. Hisense, TCL and LG, Standing Judge (of the Court of Appeal (CoA)) Patricia Rombach affirmed…
-
UPC Dusseldorf issues first decision on second medical use, hands win to Amgen in cholesterol patent dispute against Sanofi
The Dusseldorf Local Division has clarified how the UPC deals with second medical use in patent infringement proceedings, including considering the extent or significance of the allegedly infringing use, and whether an entity is “positively” or “negatively” influencing a market by encouraging infringement, or preventing a product from being used for patented use.
-
UPC Roundup (1 week): one permanent injunction granted, one preliminary injunction denied
This is a summary of developments in and around the Unified Patent Court (UPC) in the week since our May 4, 2025 UPC Roundup. Only a few noteworthy things happened. 1. Permanent injunction in Grundfos v. Canned Motor Pump; licensing talks don’t matter, lack of inventive step must be pleaded early: Dusseldorf LD (link to detailed article)…
-
New UPC Dusseldorf injunction clarifies irrelevance of licensing talks to proportionality, stresses need to argue obviousness early
In a case involving circulation pumps for heating systems and other use cases, the UPC’s Dusseldorf LD has provided some clarifications of relevance to many other cases.
-
UPC Roundup (1 week): CoA reverses PI denial, CD invalidates offside detection patent, Gucci doesn’t infringe Agfa patent, and more
This is a summary of developments in and around the Unified Patent Court (UPC) in the week since our April 26, 2025 UPC Roundup. More things happened than the week before. 1. CoA reverses denial of provisional measures (i.e., preliminary injunction) in Insulet v. EOFlow (link to detailed article) U.S. company Insulet now has a 17-country preliminary…
-
French court deems public announcement of UPC lawsuit “denigration” of competitor in absence of infringement ruling
Context: Qiagen is suing bioMérieux in the Unified Patent Court’s (UPC) Dusseldorf Local Division (LD) over a product for testing patients for latent tuberculosis (see item 2 of our March 16, 2025 UPC Roundup). Latent tuberculosis can progress to active tuberculosis. The patent-in-suit is EP2726883 (“A cell mediated immune response assay with enhanced sensitivity”). What’s…
-
UPC’s Court of Appeal reverses denial of 17-country preliminary injunction in medical device case: Insulet prevails over EOFlow
The UPC’s Court of Appeal has previously upheld and overturned some preliminary injunctions, but like in any other jurisdiction it is difficult to get a denial of a PI reversed on appeal.
-
UPC Roundup (1 week): CoA on access to forthcoming documents and use in other proceedings; Paris injunction in laser dispute; and more
This is a summary of developments in and around the Unified Patent Court (UPC) in the week since our April 18, 2025 UPC Roundup. This week has been a relatively slow one at the UPC. 1. CoA on third-party access to documents: advance requests and use in other proceedings (link to LinkedIn post) The Court of Appeal…
-
Korean laser patent dispute in UPC results in injunction only for France (less coverage than sought); previously, defendant failed to challenge validity
Context: The laser technology dispute between Korean companies Seoul Viosys and Photon Wave in the Unified Patent Court (UPC) has some unusual aspects. Seoul Viosys sued Photon Wave’s France-based distributor Laser Components. Laser Components did not bring a revocation counterclaim, but intervenor Photon Wave (the actual target of the action) did. The Paris Local Division…