You, me & the UPC

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 representative for the Chinese manufacturer after settling with the other defendants. The Court found that the accused “Bojin” surgical tools infringed claim 1 of the patent and were suitable for use in an instrument falling within claim 6.If you have any feedback, questions, or comments, please email us at [email protected] all the episodes as we release them here. Follow us on LinkedIn.

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] all the episodes as we release them here. Follow us on LinkedIn.

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 are available, an injunction will not be defeated if at least one of them complies with competition law.If you have any feedback, questions, or comments, please email us at [email protected] all the episodes as we release them here. Follow us on LinkedIn.

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 have any feedback, questions, or comments, please email us at [email protected] all the episodes as we release them here. Follow us on LinkedIn.

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 feedback, questions, or comments, please email us at [email protected] all the episodes as we release them here. Follow us on LinkedIn.

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 by Qualcomm. The infringement actions against Samsung were subsequently withdrawn.Chris Dixon walks you through the decision in today's episode.If you have any feedback, questions, or comments, please email us at [email protected] all the episodes as we release them here. Follow us on LinkedIn.

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] all the episodes as we release them here. Follow us on LinkedIn.

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 stay up-to-date on the latest UPC developments.If you have any feedback, questions, or comments, please email us at [email protected] all the episodes as we release them here. Follow us on LinkedIn.

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 auxiliary request.Find out more about UPC cases here.If you have any feedback, questions, or comments, please email us at [email protected] all the episodes as we release them here. Follow us on LinkedIn.

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] all the episodes as we release them here. Follow us on LinkedIn.

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] all the episodes as we release them here. Follow us on LinkedIn.

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] all the episodes as we release them here. Follow us on LinkedIn.

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] all the episodes as we release them here. Follow us on LinkedIn.

Patrick Newlands speaks on the CoA's clarification on both the procedural route for challenging decisions on access to documents and the substantive approach to granting such access. The appeal arose from an application by Quinn Emanuel for access to pleadings in concluded infringement proceedings between Huawei and MediaTek. The Judge Rapporteur had granted access subject to redactions, a decision upheld by the Munich Local Chamber (LC). Huawei sought to challenge that outcome, arguing both that the application should not have been granted and that the procedural route adopted was incorrect.Visit of UPC Case Tracker for more UPC decisions, article and podcast.If you have any feedback, questions, or comments, please email us at [email protected] all the episodes as we release them here. Follow us on LinkedIn.

On 29 June 2026, the CoA rejected SILIMED’s application for review of the Registrar’s refusal to remove Polytech’s 30 March 2023 opt-out of EP 2 581 193 (EP 193).EP 193 was initially granted to Polytech. However, SILIMED was successful in German non-entitlement proceedings seeking the transfer and consent to the re-registration of all national parts of EP 193.Listen to Ben Reeves' explanation of the decision in this episode.Visit our UPC case tracker for more detail on this case, and many others.If you have any feedback, questions, or comments, please email us at [email protected] all the episodes as we release them here. Follow us on LinkedIn.

Check out our UPC case tracker.On 17 June 2026, the Milan Local Division (LD) dismissed Ericsson’s application for provisional measures against ASUSTeK and Arvato in relation to EP 3 076 673, a patent concerning the decoding and encoding of pictures of a video sequence. Eden Winlow explains more in this episode. Listen today.If you have any feedback, questions, or comments, please email us at [email protected] all the episodes as we release them here. Follow us on LinkedIn.

Check out our UPC case tracker today.Eden Winlow explores two Court of Appeal (CoA) orders issued on 22 June 2026. They address related aspects of internal UPC jurisdiction in multi-defendant infringement actions.In Valeo v Bosch, the Court considered the position where one or more defendants were established outside the territory of the Contracting Member States, here Serbia and China, and clarified the relationship between art. 33(1)(b) and the third subparagraph of art. 33(1) of the Unified Patent Court Agreement (UPCA) in allocating competence between UPC divisions in multi-defendant infringement actions. In Bosch v Valeo, the Court considered the requirements in art. 33(1)(b) UPCA for bringing a claim against multiple defendants before a LD, namely the existence of a “commercial relationship” and the requirement that the action relate to the “same alleged infringement”.If you have any feedback, questions, or comments, please email us at [email protected] all the episodes as we release them here. Follow us on LinkedIn.

Alex Mocanu walks you through the Paris Local Division (LD) decision in Tiru v Valinea Energie (UPC_CFI_130/2025) handed down on 29 May 2026.The decision concerned Tiru’s patent EP 3 178 578 (EP 578), which relates to technology implemented in a waste incineration furnace. Valinea Energie (Valinea), a company within the Veolia group, operates the accused waste treatment facility in Montbéliard, France. The second defendant, Maguin, manufactures the combustion chamber of the furnace alleged to infringe the patent.For more analysis our UPC cases, visit our UPC case tracker.If you have any feedback, questions, or comments, please email us at [email protected] all the episodes as we release them here. Follow us on LinkedIn.

On 5 November 2025, the Milan LD granted 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.Florence Plisner explains all in this episode.For more analysis our UPC cases, visit our UPC case tracker.If you have any feedback, questions, or comments, please email us at [email protected] all the episodes as we release them here. Follow us on LinkedIn.

Helin Kaya walks you through a Court of Appeal (CoA) decision today. In which it issued an order dismissing Speed Care’s request for discretionary review concerning the value in dispute set by the Hamburg Local Division (LD) in proceedings concerning EP 2 077 811. Want to learn more about the UPC, visit our UPC case tracker today.If you have any feedback, questions, or comments, please email us at [email protected] all the episodes as we release them here. Follow us on LinkedIn.

On 16 June 2026, the Mannheim Local Division (LD), granted relief, including an injunction, against the Defendants (Disney) in respect of InterDigital’s (IDC) EP 2 465 265, a patent relating to intra chroma encoding and decoding of video data.Listen to Nadine Bleach's summary of the decision decision today.If you have any feedback, questions, or comments, please email us at [email protected] all the episodes as we release them here. Follow us on LinkedIn.

On 1 June 2026, the Court of Appeal confirmed that a claimant's status as a small or medium-sized enterprise does not exempt it from the obligation to provide security for costs under r. 158 RoP, dismissing an appeal by La Siddhi Consultancy Limited against a €75,000 security order made in revocation proceedings before the Milan Central Division.Listen to Lucy Sewter's overview of the decision today.If you have any feedback, questions, or comments, please email us at [email protected] all the episodes as we release them here. Follow us on LinkedIn.

Lucy Sewter walks you through a Court of Appeal decision in this episode. The decision was issued by default against Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy, dismissing its appeal against the Paris Central Division's revocation of EP 2 671 173 in its entirety. The decision serves as a reminder of the consequences of non-compliance with security for costs orders.If you have any feedback, questions, or comments, please email us at [email protected] all the episodes as we release them here. Follow us on LinkedIn.

Jonathan Ross explores a Lisbon Local Division (LD) decision today. They found that Ericsson had successfully established infringement of its Wi-Fi related patent EP 2 819 131 against AsusTek.The case concerned laptops and notebooks incorporating Intel Wi‑Fi 6 and Wi‑Fi 6E modules. Ericsson alleged that AsusTek infringed through its various European‑facing websites. AsusTek counterclaimed for revocation and denied infringement, arguing both that the patent was invalid and that it was not responsible for the relevant acts relied upon by Ericsson.Visit our UPC case tracker to stay up to date on all things UPC.If you have any feedback, questions, or comments, please email us at [email protected] all the episodes as we release them here. Follow us on LinkedIn.

Maria Ryan talks you through a Hamburg Local Division (LD) decision today. The Hamburg LD ordered penalty payments of EUR 58,800 against two defendants for non‑compliance with a final order. The order for payment follows a preliminary injunction granted in October 2025 in favour of Occlutech GmbH, in which the defendants, Lepu Medical, were prohibited from offering, placing on the market or using (or importing or storing for those purposes) certain braided occlusion devices in a number of countries (Germany, France, Italy, The Netherlands and Ireland).Stay up-to-date on all things UPC by exploring our UPC case tracker.If you have any feedback, questions, or comments, please email us at [email protected] all the episodes as we release them here. Follow us on LinkedIn.

On 11 May 2026, the Düsseldorf LD issued an order in the ongoing proceedings between Yangtze Memory Technologies (Yangtze) and Micron Technology (Micron). Yangtze is suing Micron for infringement of EP 3 909 047, which relates to advanced semiconductor memory technology.Ewan MacAulay explores the case in detail. Listen now!Interested in learning more about UPC cases. Check out our UPC case tracker.If you have any feedback, questions, or comments, please email us at [email protected] all the episodes as we release them here. Follow us on LinkedIn.

On 7 May 2026, the Brussels LD issued a cost decision under r. 150 RoP arising from Preliminary Injunction (PI) proceedings (UPC_CFI_582/2024) and related appeal proceedings (UPC_CoA_317/2025 and UPC_CoA_376/2025) concerning EP 3 732 827. Barco’s PI requests had been dismissed at both instances for lack of urgency.Lucy Sewter dives into the details of this decision in today's episode. Interested in other UPC cases? Check out our new UPC case tracker today!If you have any feedback, questions, or comments, please email us at [email protected] all the episodes as we release them here. Follow us on LinkedIn.

Ewan MacAulary talks you through the Hague Local Division (LD) decision on an application for an order to produce documents under r.190 RoP brought by Avient Protective Materials (Avient) in its ongoing proceedings against the Xingi Group (Xingi). The proceedings relate to EP 2 791 402, which protects certain forms of polyethylene yarn and products comprising it, such as bulletproof panels, helmets and vests.Interested in other UPC cases? Explore our UPC case tracker today.If you have any feedback, questions, or comments, please email us at [email protected] all the episodes as we release them here. Follow us on LinkedIn.

Eden Winlow explores the Düsseldorf LD decision to refuse Ottobock’s application for provisional measures concerning EP 3 001 984, finding that neither urgency nor infringement was established with the requisite degree of certainty. The application, filed in December 2025, was dismissed in its entirety, with costs awarded against the applicant.If you have any feedback, questions, or comments, please email us at [email protected] all the episodes as we release them here. Follow us on LinkedIn.

On 23 April 2026, the Munich LD dismissed an application by Advanced Standard Communication LLC (ASC) for panel review of the Judge-Rapporteur’s Order requiring it to provide €300,000 security for costs in its infringement action against Xiaomi concerning an SEP.Nischay Mall explores this case in today's episode. Check it out.If you have any feedback, questions, or comments, please email us at [email protected] all the episodes as we release them here. Follow us on LinkedIn.

The Court of Appeal (CoA) has overturned the Paris LD’s refusal of provisional measures and granted a Preliminary Injunction (PI) preventing Viatris Santé from marketing its fampridine generic (which is for the improvement of walking speed in adult patients with MS) in France until expiry of Merz’s SPC in July 2026.Listen to Aida Tohala's review of this decision in this episode of You, Me and the UPC: Case by case.If you have any feedback, questions, or comments, please email us at [email protected] all the episodes as we release them here. Follow us on LinkedIn.

Aida Tohala walks you through an Order dated 4 May 2026, in which the Düsseldorf Local Division (LD) dismissed challenges to both the impartiality of the Court appointed experts and to the underlying ex parte inspection and evidence preservation order concerning Topsoe A/S’s patent EP 3 802 413 relating to a plant for producing hydrogen.If you have any feedback, questions, or comments, please email us at [email protected] all the episodes as we release them here. Follow us on LinkedIn.

Rebekka Thomas looks at the Hague LD's order in respect of an application for provisional measures by Stratasys against BambuLab. The dispute concerned BambuLab’s 3D printer (referred to as H2C), which was launched at a trade fair in Frankfurt in November 2025. Find out more about Bristows UPC expertise here.If you have any feedback, questions, or comments, please email us at [email protected] all the episodes as we release them here. Follow us on LinkedIn.

The UPC continues to provide anti-suit relief in FRAND actions where it considers its jurisdiction may be compromised by the grant of interim licence applications in other Courts. In the UPC, Nokia is pursuing SEP infringement actions against Chinese car manufacturer, Geely. In response Geely initiated rate-setting proceedings in a parallel action before the Hangzhou Court in China and applied for a worldwide “interim licence” by way of a preservation order.Nicholas Round explores this case in detail. Listen now!We also have another podcast where our experts focus on FRAND. Give it a listen here.If you have any feedback, questions, or comments, please email us at [email protected] all the episodes as we release them here. Follow us on LinkedIn.

On 7 April 2026, the CoA reaffirmed that a request for Security of Costs (SoC) may be made against an appellant, regardless of the party’s status as a claimant/defendant in first instance proceedings.Hannah Rigby provides a compressive overview of this decision in today's episode.If you have any feedback, questions, or comments, please email us at [email protected] all the episodes as we release them here. Follow us on LinkedIn.

Jonathan Ross analyses the Milan Central Division's (CD) decision to revoke Flexicare (Group) Limited’s unitary patent EP 4 185 356 following a revocation action brought by Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Limited. Listen today.If you have any feedback, questions, or comments, please email us at [email protected] all the episodes as we release them here. Follow us on LinkedIn.

Fariha Chowdhury is back with another UPC case update. Today, she looks at the Paris LD's decision to revoke Compagnie Générale des Etablissements Michelin’s European patent EP 2 323 858 B1 (EP 858) in its entirety and dismissed Michelin’s infringement action against three Goodyear group companies. Listen today, and don't forget to subscribe!If you have any feedback, questions, or comments, please email us at [email protected] all the episodes as we release them here. Follow us on LinkedIn.

Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. (Abbott) brought proceedings against Sinocare Inc. and A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l. (together the Respondents) alleging infringement of EP 3 988 471, which concerns a continuous glucose monitoring system displaying real‑time glucose data together with event information.Fariha Chowdhury explores the case in detail in this episode. Don't forget to subscribe so you don't miss any UPC case updates.If you have any feedback, questions, or comments, please email us at [email protected] all the episodes as we release them here. Follow us on LinkedIn.

On 14 April 2026, the Brussels Local Division (LD) handed down an order under r.190 RoP requiring Establishment Labs S.A (LABS) to produce a range of evidence, including soft tissue implant samples and various technical and regulatory documents, within 21 days, following a successful application made by GC Aesthetics.In our 50th episode, Cassie Blackburn dives into the details of the decision. Listen today and don't forget to subscribe.If you have any feedback, questions, or comments, please email us at [email protected] all the episodes as we release them here. Follow us on LinkedIn.

Claire Wilson takes a look at the Milan Central Division's decision to dismiss ongoing revocation proceedings between Neurocrine Biosciences and Spruce Biosciences as devoid of purpose under r. 360 RoP. If you have any feedback, questions, or comments, please email us at [email protected] all the episodes as we release them here. Follow us on LinkedIn.

Chloe Dickson looks at the Court of Appeal decision to uphold the revocation of an order obtained ex parte by Ecovacs against Roborock for inspection of robot vacuum cleaners at a trade fair.If you have any feedback, questions, or comments, please email us at [email protected] all the episodes as we release them here. Follow us on LinkedIn.

Lucy Sewter explores how the CoA overturned a decision of the Mannheim Local Division (LD) that had refused Amazon permission to produce a private transcript of an oral hearing in proceedings UPC_CFI_936/2025 between Amazon and InterDigital.If you have any feedback, questions, or comments, please email us at [email protected] all the episodes as we release them here. Follow us on LinkedIn.

On 13 March 2026, the Court of Appeal (CoA) has set aside the Paris Local Division’s (LD’s) decision (dated 27 November 2025) that had dismissed the preliminary objections and accepted jurisdiction over alleged infringements occurring in several non-UPC states between Keeex and several US and Irish based defendants.Lucy Sewter explores the case in detail. Listen now.If you have any feedback, questions, or comments, please email us at [email protected] all the episodes as we release them here. Follow us on LinkedIn.

Chloe Dickson talks you through a decision concerning EOFlow’s request for an order that certain information on the extent to which it had committed acts of infringement of Insulet’s patent be designated as confidential and withheld from public inspection.If you have any feedback, questions, or comments, please email us at [email protected] all the episodes as we release them here. Follow us on LinkedIn.

Patrick Newlands looks at how the Düsseldorf Local Division’s (LD) application of the Huawei v ZTE factors has clarified how that LD of the UPC intends to approach the framework.If you have any feedback, questions, or comments, please email us at [email protected] all the episodes as we release them here. Follow us on LinkedIn.

On 24 February 2026, in UERAN v Xiaomi, the Munich Local Division (LD) corrected an unopposed clerical omission in its January confidentiality order by adding several missing paragraphs of the Statement of Defence. Listen to Eden Winlow in today's episode, who unpicks the decision.If you have any feedback, questions, or comments, please email us at [email protected] all the episodes as we release them here. Follow us on LinkedIn.

Eden Winlow covers the Court of Appeal's (CoA) first ever referral to the CJEU.In which the CoA has sought clarity on the application of long-arm jurisdiction in situations involving non-EU defendants alleged to have infringed patents using the services of an EU-based intermediary, such as an authorised representative.If you have any feedback, questions, or comments, please email us at [email protected] all the episodes as we release them here. Follow us on LinkedIn.

On 24 February 2026, the CoA issued two decisions that reinforce the need for precise requests from third parties for public access under r. 62.1(b) RoP. Eden Winlow explores both decisions in this episode. Listen today and don't forget to subscribe!If you have any feedback, questions, or comments, please email us at [email protected] all the episodes as we release them here. Follow us on LinkedIn.

On 24 February 2026, the Munich Central Division dismissed TCL’s revocation action against Corning’s patent concerning methods for producing alkali free glass for display substrates. These glass sheets are used in Active Matrix Liquid Crystal Display (AMLCD) applications.Rachael Cartwright dives into the detail in this episode. Listen now!If you have any feedback, questions, or comments, please email us at [email protected] all the episodes as we release them here. Follow us on LinkedIn.

Sam Harvey takes a look at two decisions issued by the UK Court and the UPC’s Mannheim LD in the ongoing multi-jurisdictional dispute between Amazon and InterDigital over the terms of a RAND licence to InterDigital’s SEP video codec portfolio.If you have any feedback, questions, or comments, please email us at [email protected] all the episodes as we release them here. Follow us on LinkedIn.