The Unified Patent Court (UPC) is a planned future court common to EU Member States which participate in the Unitary Patent system, and it will be part of their judicial system. After a transitional period of 7 years or 14 years at most, it will have exclusive competence in respect of traditional European patents and European patents with unitary effect (Unitary Patents). The UPC is based on the Unified Patent Court Agreement. The Unitary Patent system and the UPC are planned to start functioning once certain ratification conditions have been fulfilled.
As we approach 18 months since the UPC opened its doors and the festive season, we thought this would be a good time to offer our readers the chance to showcase their UPC knowledge by participating in the Kluwer UPC Christmas Quiz. We have set 20 questions with multiple choice answers. Please submit your answers…
A case concerning an automated vinification system offers us a glimpse of that rare species of patent litigation: the declaratory non-infringement action. The case demonstrates the need to carefully draft this type of action, as well as the need to choose the right evidence to support declarations that go beyond specific models. This is key…
UPC 252/2023 NanoString v Harvard ACT_551180/2023 (UPC_CFI_252/2023) The UPC’s Munich Central Division has recently issued its decision revoking Harvard’s EP 2794928 B1 (“the Patent”) in DE, NL, and FR, with other EPO member states likely excluded from the decision on commercial grounds having lapsed during opposition proceedings in 2019. The decision is appealable. The NanoString decision…
The king is dead! Long live the king! An expression traditionally uttered at the death of a monarch to acclaim a new king on the death of his predecessor. Could it be applied to our traditional French saisie-contrefaçon at the advent of saisie-contrefaçon before the UPC? This question came to mind last week during a…
Is Germany no longer the Eldorado for preliminary injunctions (“PI”) applicants? Whatever the answer to this question, the UPC local division of the most famous German patent forum (i.e., Düsseldorf) has rejected Novartis and Genentech’s application for a PI against Celltrion relating to the anti-IgE antibody marketed under the name Xolair® (omalizumab), ruling that there…
On 27 August 2024, the Munich Local Division awarded a preliminary injunction (‘PI’) in an action brought by Hand Held Products against Scandit for infringement of EP3866051 (“Mobile computer configured to read multiple decodable indicia”) in relation to Scandit’s ‘Data Capture SDK’ software (Order UPC_CFI_74/2024). The Court held that Scandit’s software development kit (SDK) more…
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…
Background In June 2024, we reported that in an application for provisional measures brought by Abbott Diabetes Care against Sibio Technology, The Hague Local Division (“LD”) determined, inter alia, that it had competence for Ireland, in the sense that it could grant a PI extending to Ireland under European patent validated in that country. In…
In a long awaited, but timely decision the Düsseldorf local division has the honour to be the first to decide an infringement case before the UPC. Indeed, the court lived up to its promise to deliver a decision in about 1 year. The decision itself, where the patent was found invalid, but an auxiliary request…
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,…
