You, me & the UPC

Епізоди

• 
  Case by Case | Court of Appeal clarifies res judicata, prior use rights and rule 171.2 challenges 08.10.2026 6хв

  Nischay Mall speaks on the Court of Appeal decision in Heraeus Electronics v Vibrantz today. The decision addresses a number of important procedural and substantive issues, including the effect of national validity judgments before the UPC, the scope of r. 362 RoP, the evidential consequences of a pleading made "on the grounds of lack of knowledge" under r. 171.2 RoP, the relationship between Art. 28 UPCA and national prior user rights, and the circumstances in which infringing conduct in one...
• 
  Case by Case | The Court of Appeal distinguishes jurisdiction from admissibility in pre-grant declaration of non-infringement dispute 02.10.2026 3хв

  Today, Olivia Henry unpacks both the first instance and appeal decisions in the Sidel v Omnia case. If you have any feedback, questions, or comments, please email us at [email protected]. Find all the episodes as we release them here. Follow us on LinkedIn.
• 
  Case by Case | Munich Local Division upholds DivX streaming patent and finds Netflix liable for indirect infringement 02.10.2026 3хв

  On 15 September 2026, the Munich LD upheld DivX's unitary patent relating to progressive media streaming and found that Netflix indirectly infringed through the supply of its streaming software. Netflix had sought revocation of the patent and denied infringement, arguing that the patent was anticipated or rendered obvious by various multimedia and streaming disclosures and that, properly construed, its software did not fall within the scope of the claims. Fariha Chowdhury unpacks the decision...
• 
  Case by Case | Abbott secures UPC-wide Preliminary Injunction over Continuous Glucose Monitoring patent 25.09.2026 3хв

  Melissa Dix discusses a Milan Local Division (LD) decision from 7 September today. The LD granted Abbott a UPC-wide PI against the Chinese company SiSensing and four of its subsidiaries. Abbott is the main supplier of Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM) products for diabetes in the UPC contracting member states. The Court found it more likely than not that the defendants’ CGM product infringed Abbott’s patent and rejected the validity challenges at the provisional stage. Keep up with mo...
• 
  Case by Case | Munich Central Division clarifies limits of entitlement based revocation under Art. 138(1)(e) EPC 24.09.2026 2хв

  Ewan MacAulay walks you through the Munich Central Division (CD) which was handed down in the free-standing revocation action brought by Wittenstein SE (Wittenstein) against Vestas Wind Systems (Vestas) in relation to a wind turbine gearbox patent EP 4 226 039. Check out our UPC case tracker for more updates. If you have any feedback, questions, or comments, please email us at [email protected]. Find all the episodes as we release them here. Follow us on LinkedIn.
• 
  Case by Case | Court of Appeal clarifies the scope and limits of Art. 60 UPCA in evidence preservation measures 18.09.2026 5хв

  Cassie Blackburn discusses a Court of Appeal (CoA) decision from 3 September in this episode. The CoA issued its decision in WEPA Nederland B.V. v Essity Hygiene concerning an application for evidence preservation and inspection measures. WEPA Nederland B.V. (WEPA) brought a revocation action in the Paris seat of the CD relating to Essity Hygiene (Essity)’s patent, EP 3 289 139, which protects tissue paper containing pulp fibres derived from Miscanthus and a method for manufacturing the same....
• 
  Case by Case | The Düsseldorf Local Division clarifies the role of evidence preservation in establishing infringement 17.09.2026 5хв

  Listen to Cassie Blackburn's analysis of the Düsseldorf Local Division (LD) decision in fiskaly GmbH v SwissBit AG and Swissbit Germany AG, also concerning an application for evidence preservation and inspection measures. fiskaly GmbH (fiskaly), the proprietor of EP 4 285 308, which relates to the secure registration of sequences of transactions, filed an application on 20 April 2026 for an inspection and preservation order, which was subsequently granted. SwissBit AG and Swissbit Germany AG ...
• 
  Case by Case | The Düsseldorf Local Chamber Clarifies “Double-Flat” Claims and Confirms Intermediary Liability for EU Authorised Representatives. 11.09.2026 4хв

  Rachael Cartwright explores a decision that will be of particular interest to medical device manufacturers and their regulatory representatives. The Düsseldorf Local Chamber (LC) considered the scope of liability of an EU authorised representative in proceedings concerning EP 2 892 442, designated in Germany, France and the UK, relating to surgical torque transmitting instruments. The patent proprietor ultimately continued its case only against the German entity acting as the authorised repr...
• 
  Case by Case | Court of Appeal dismisses added matter and inventive step attacks, upholding Abbott’s glucose monitoring patent 04.09.2026 3хв

  Florence Plisner unpacks a Court of Appeal (CoA) decision. The CoA dismissed Sibio’s appeal against the Paris Central Division’s decision upholding Abbott’s patent relating to continuous glucose monitoring devices, in a judgment that provides important guidance on the assessment of added matter and, in particular, intermediate generalisations. If you have any feedback, questions, or comments, please email us at [email protected]. Find all the episodes as we release them here. Foll...
• 
  Case by Case | The Hamburg Local Division provides further guidance on the relationship between patent pool and bilateral licensing, implementer willingness, and the scope of the FRAND defence 04.09.2026 3хв

  Patrick Newlands talks about a Hamburg Local Decision (LD) today from 24 August 2026. The LD issued a significant FRAND decision in Fraunhofer v HMD, rejecting HMD’s FRAND defence while providing guidance on when an implementer can insist on a bilateral SEP licence instead of taking a pool licence. The LD confirmed that an SEP owner can satisfy its FRAND obligations if it offers one FRAND-compliant licence, whether through a patent pool or bilaterally. Accordingly, where both routes a...
• 
  Case by Case | Court of Appeal confirms retroactive effect of overturned UPC judgments, having no legal effect for enforcement purposes 28.08.2026 3хв

  Eden Winlow speaks on a Court of Appeal (CoA) decision today. The CoA set aside penalty orders requiring Kodak to pay €1.72 million for alleged non-compliance with an earlier infringement judgment in favour of Fujifilm. The appeal followed the Court’s earlier decision on the merits, in which the Mannheim Local Division’s (LD) infringement judgment was overturned and Kodak was found not to infringe because it could rely on a private prior use right, previously reported here and here. If you ha...
• 
  Case by Case | Paris Local Division Refuses Stay UPC proceedings despite parallel National Revocation action 28.08.2026 5хв

  On 30 July 2026 the Paris Local Division (LD) refused to stay the infringement action initiated by several companies in the Merz group (Merz) despite parallel revocation proceedings before the Paris National Court, Tribunal Judiciaire de Paris (Paris TJ). The Court’s decision provides further guidance on the application of Art. 29 and 30 of the Brussels I Recast Regulation (BIRR) to parallel national and UPC proceedings. Listen to Hannah Rigby's explanation of the decision. If you have any fe...
• 
  Case by Case | Court of Appeal clarifies the method for calculating Court fees in appeals in accordance with R. 220.1(a) RoP 21.08.2026 3хв

  On 15 July 2026, the CoA issued an order in proceedings between Qualcomm and Network System Technologies, clarifying aspects of the how UPC Court fees should be calculated when filing appeal proceedings. The dispute concerned the calculation and payment of appeal fees in proceedings where Network System Technologies (NST) had commenced infringement proceedings against Qualcomm entities and Samsung relating to three patents, and counterclaims for revocation of these patents had been commenced ...
• 
  Case by Case | Court of Appeal upholds injunction finding provisional measures necessary to prevent competitive harm 21.08.2026 2хв

  Ewan MacAulay discusses a Court of Appeal (CoA) (Panel 3, Judge Ulrike Voß presiding) handed down on 8 July 2026. It concerned AngelAlign’s appeal against the 12 February 2026 order of the Düsseldorf Local Division (LD) to issue a Preliminary Injunction (PI) for its alleged infringement of Align Technologies’ patent EP 4 346 690. Keep on top of UPC cases as they develop by visiting our UPC case tracker. If you have any feedback, questions, or comments, please email us at [email protected]...
• 
  Case by Case | Düsseldorf Local Division clarifies the scope of NDAs in FRAND negotiations 14.08.2026 1хв

  Luke Norton explores the Düsseldorf Local Division decision in InterDigital v The Walt Disney from 23 July 2026, finding that Disney had infringed InterDigital’s patent EP 2 449 782, which relates to the signalling of intra prediction information in video encoding and bitstreams. Disney’s counterclaim for revocation failed, as the patent was found not to contain added matter and the claims were held to be both novel and inventive over the cited prior art. Visit our UPC case tracker to s...
• 
  Case by Case | Court of Appeal confirms scope for reliance on dependent claims in revocation proceedings 14.08.2026 3хв

  In today's episode, Rebekka Thomas discusses the Court of Appeal decision in Fujifilm v Kodak concerning EP 3 476 616, relating to lithographic printing plate precursors, manufacturing methods and printing methods. The Court overturned the Mannheim Local Division’s (LD) revocation of the patent and dismissal of Fujifilm’s infringement action, holding that a patentee may rely on granted dependent claims and claim combinations already encompassed by the patent as granted without filing an auxil...
• 
  Case by case | Hamburg Local Division restricts UPC jurisdiction over UK patent parts despite EU anchor defendants 07.08.2026 1хв

  On 8 June 2026, the Hamburg Local Division partially granted the Defendants’ preliminary objection under r.19.1(a) RoP concerning the UPC’s international jurisdiction over a US-based defendant in respect of infringement in a non-UPC member state, in this case, the UK. Listen to Amy Howlett's rundown of the decision today. If you have any feedback, questions, or comments, please email us at [email protected]. Find all the episodes as we release them here. Follow us on LinkedIn.
• 
  Case by Case | Court of Appeal rejects Guardant Health’s preliminary injunction application due to unreasonable delay 07.08.2026 4хв

  In a decision dated 2 July 2026, the Court of Appeal (CoA) provided guidance on the steps a patentee should take to comply with the urgency requirement in the preliminary injunction proceedings brought by Guardant Health (Guardant) against SOPHiA Genetics’ (SOPHiA) liquid biopsy test. Bristows represented SOPHiA in these proceedings. Florence Plisner explains more in this episode. If you have any feedback, questions, or comments, please email us at [email protected]. Find all the episod...
• 
  Case by Case | Local Division overturns ex parte injunction granted in November in relation to protective head gear 31.07.2026 3хв

  Florence Plisner discusses the Milan LD's decision to grant Cardo Systems (Cardo) ex parte Preliminary Injunction (PI) against ResoSport and Shenzhen Ziwu Chuangxin Technology (together ResoSport) in relation to infringement of a patent covering a fastening device within protective head gear. View our UPC case tracker to stay up to date on the latest developments in the UPC. If you have any feedback, questions, or comments, please email us at [email protected]. Find all the episodes as ...
• 
  Case by Case | Court of Appeal provides guidance on orders for the production of evidence under R.190 RoP 31.07.2026 1хв

  On 29 June 2026, the CoA handed down a decision providing guidance on the production of evidence under R.190 RoP in Polytechnik Luft- und Feuerungstechnik v Dall Energy [UPC-COA-57/2026]. Patrick Newlands walks you through the CoA considerations in this episode. If you have any feedback, questions, or comments, please email us at [email protected]. Find all the episodes as we release them here. Follow us on LinkedIn.