News & Events
Latest updates
With the EPO and UPC adopting different frameworks for inventive step, is there potential for conflicting decisions?
The EPO regularly applies the problem and solution approach when deciding whether an invention involves an inventive step. Central to this approach is identifying the technical differences between the invention …
Read articleParis Central Division of the UPC has provided guidance on what constitutes common general knowledge (“CGK”)
Netherlands B.V. v VMR Products LLC [UPC_CFI_307/2023] –Paris Central Division (Catalozzi, Zhilova, Tillmann) – 29 November 2024 The Paris Central Division of the UPC has provided guidance on what constitutes …
Read articleUPC Court of Appeal Remits Meril’s request to stay infringement proceedings pending the outcome of EPO opposition
Meril Life Sciences PVT Limited & ors v Edwards Lifesciences Corporation [UPC-CoA-551/2024] –Court of Appeal of the UPC (Grabinski, Blok, Gougé) – 21 November 2024 The UPC’s First Panel of …
Read articleCentral Division takes pragmatic approach to late-filed submissions and revokes VMR’s patent for lack of inventive step
In Njoy v VMR (UPC_CFI_308/2023), the Paris Central Division confirmed that the “front loaded” provisions of the UPC should be interpreted in line with the principles of proportionality and procedural …
Read articleUPC first FRAND judgment results in injunction against OPPO
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd & anor UPC_CFI_210/2023 – Mannheim Local Division (Tochtermann, Böttcher, Brinkman & Loibner) – 22 November 2024. The UPC issued its …
Read articleEdwards v Meril confirms UPC’s jurisdiction over acts of infringement before the court came into force
In Edwards v Meril (UPC_CGI_15/2023), the UPC’s Munich local division refused to stay infringement proceedings pending an appeal on the central division’s finding of validity of the patent in amended …
Read articleNjoy v Juul finds the patent’s underlying problem despite no mention of the problem in the specification
In Njoy v Juul (UPC CFI 315 /2023), the Paris Division of the Central Division provides further insight into the UPC’s approach to inventive step. Of critical importance in assessing …
Read articleProspect of successful attempt at “Gilette Defence” fizzles out in SodaStream v Aarke with Aarke found to infringe SodaStream’s patent
In SodaStream v Aarke (UPC_CFI_373/2023), the UPC’s Dusseldorf local division has given us further insight into the UPC’s approach to claim interpretation. The court held that, if the patent distinguishes …
Read articleThe Patent Lawyer: UPC’s first year: emergence of a purely civil law system?
The UPC passed its milestone 1 year anniversary on 1 June 2024. At the time of writing we are still awaiting the first substantive decisions on invalidity and infringement, there …
Read article