Reading the title of this paper, perhaps you will smile, thinking about all the discussions that this issue has already ignited, even before the UPC came into force. Since the beginning, most patentees in the pharmaceutical field were suspicious concerning the new jurisdiction, especially regarding the same old question: pro-patentee or not? Hostile/not hostile to…
The question of the role that UPC is likely to play in relation to SEPs (and therefore FRAND licenses) is one that I’ve heard most often since the new jurisdiction was born, certainly because the main aim of the UPC is to harmonize hitherto fragmented patent litigation in Europe, notably to improve legal certainty. However,…
This week we reported on the case between Huawei and Netgear, in which the defendant had obtained a production order for a comparable license granted by Huawei to Qualcomm, the production of which Netgear had obtained via a decision of the Munich local division on 24 April 2024. It is interesting to note that this…
Like a time machine, we began yesterday by examining the first revocation decision issued by the Munich Central Division on 16 July (see here), today we’ll be looking back at another earlier case, in which the Düsseldorf local division granted UPC’s first permanent injunction on 3 July. Note that this case has already been brilliantly…
On 16 July 2024, the Munich Central Division revoked a patent for the first time in the litigation between Sanofi, Regeneron, and Amgen (UPC_CFI_1/2023). This decision is important not only because it is the first of its kind, but also because it establishes UPC’s position on the patentability of therapeutic antibody inventions. In this case,…
Regular readers of this blog will be aware of my interest, or rather my passion, for several Patent Law topics, including notably SEPs (see notably here, here and here), proof of infringement (see notably here, here and here) and UPC (see notably here, here and here). So far, UPC has not (yet) been the scene…
Just over a year after the UPC Agreement came into force, the Paris local division handed down UPC’s first decision on an infringement action. Unfortunately for the patentee, the court dismissed his action, ruling that the patent invoked was null and void. In this case, two manufacturers, DEXCOM and ABBOTT, were involved in a dispute…
Readers are familiar with the story of the founding of the UPC, which “obliged” its founders to make it an ad hoc Court, not integrated into the European judicial system (with a reinforced cooperation agreement between the members of the UPC). The fragility of this system has provoked much criticism (e.g., our comments here). The…
In Belgium, descriptive seizures (called “saisie-description” in Belgium) are long-standing ex parte procedures to collect evidence of infringement. When a Court grants a saisie request, the said authorisation can later be opposed by the seized party. The seized party can in particular argue that IP right invoked was not prima facie valid. By the time…
Last week, we had the opportunity to review the texts regarding the UPC “saisie”, the ex parte orders issued in the OERLIKON and C-KORE cases. In the second case, which is before the Paris local division, the seized party has lodged an appeal against the order. To the best of my knowledge, this is the…
