How To Optimize The Disclosure Of Your International Patent Application (Video)

The EU Pharmaceutical Package represents the most significant reform of EU pharmaceutical law in over twenty years, but what does it mean for parallel imports of medicines? This analysis examines how the Package affects the regulatory framework for parallel trade, from repackaging requirements to shortage management and electronic package leaflets.

A European Patent Office Technical Board of Appeal decision examines whether incorporating energy costs into blow molder input parameters constitutes an inventive step over prior art that considered energy efficiency. The central dispute revolves around whether "energy costs" encompasses energy consumption or is limited to monetary costs, and whether a claim broad enough to produce results indistinguishable from prior art can satisfy inventive step requirements.

This case examines the liability of an EU Authorized Representative under the Medical Device Regulation as an intermediary in patent infringement proceedings, even when they are not direct infringers. The court addresses critical procedural questions including deemed acceptance of jurisdiction, the consequences of non-attendance at oral hearings, and the discretion to refuse stays despite pending CJEU referrals.

The Düsseldorf Local Division partially upheld a patent relating to multimedia content sharing in peer-to-peer configurations and found indirect infringement by Disney's streaming service. The decision addresses critical issues of claim construction, patent validity, and procedural aspects while applying established UPC case law on inventive step testing.

The Munich Central Division of the Unified Patent Court addressed critical procedural and substantive questions in a revocation action concerning European Patent EP 4 226 039. The court examined the burden of proof required to establish lack of entitlement under Art. 138(1)(e) EPC, the court's discretion to assess dependent claims in stand-alone revocation proceedings, and the evidentiary value of Wayback Machine screenshots for proving public availability of online prior art.

The Local Division Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court addresses parallel infringement and revocation proceedings involving dental implant technology patent EP 3 402 420 B1. The case involves Versah LLC asserting patent rights against multiple defendants across nine European jurisdictions, with one defendant withdrawing following settlement while others continue to contest both infringement claims and patent validity.

Violation of principle of party disposition constitutes “manifest error” The Court of First Instance is strictly bound by the relief requested according to Art. 76(1) UPCA and cannot award more than is requested. In case a court awards more than is requested (e.g. change of “and”-warning into “or”-disclaimer) this constitutes a manifest error under Art. 76(1) UPCA (cf. Court of Appeal, UPC_CoA_388/2024, Sibio v. Abbott).

The Hamburg Local Division of the Unified Patent Court addresses whether patent holders must assert all potentially infringed patents in a single preliminary measures application, or if they may pursue separate proceedings. The decision clarifies the scope of due diligence obligations when patent holders become aware of potential infringements and the strategic implications for enforcement actions.

The Unified Patent Court's Local Division in Düsseldorf addresses procedural matters concerning inspection and preservation of evidence in a patent dispute between Danish company Topsoe A/S and German respondents SYPOX GmbH and Josef Kerner Energiewirtschafts-GmbH. The case involves questions regarding the release of detailed descriptions and protection of confidential information under Articles 58 and 60 of the UPCA.

The Munich Local Division of the Unified Patent Court issued two significant decisions addressing patent exhaustion and FRAND licensing in standard-essential patent disputes. These rulings clarify when upstream licenses to software suppliers exhaust patent rights for downstream products and establish important precedents for SEP enforcement in the telecommunications industry.

Rule 296.3 RoP is to be understood to mean that, after stayed proceedings are resumed, the applicable time limits continue to run from the date of the order resuming the proceedings, taking into account the time limits that had already expired prior to the stay of the proceedings.

An order to preserve evidence pursuant to Art. 60 UPCA also allows for the seizure of promotional and commercial documents (potentially) proving infringing activities and is not limited to documents concerning the technical details of the product or process in question.

A European Patent Office Technical Board of Appeal decision examines whether incorporating energy costs into blow molder input parameters constitutes an inventive step over prior art that considered energy efficiency. The central dispute revolves around whether "energy costs" encompasses energy consumption or is limited to monetary costs, and whether a claim broad enough to produce results indistinguishable from prior art can satisfy inventive step requirements.

The UPC Court of Appeal Luxembourg addresses critical questions about patent amendment admissibility, claim construction methodology, and jurisdictional boundaries in cross-border infringement cases. This decision clarifies the standard of review for patent amendments under Rule 30.1 RoP and establishes important precedent on burden of proof requirements when alleging infringement in non-UPCA member states like Poland.

This case examines the liability of an EU Authorized Representative under the Medical Device Regulation as an intermediary in patent infringement proceedings, even when they are not direct infringers. The court addresses critical procedural questions including deemed acceptance of jurisdiction, the consequences of non-attendance at oral hearings, and the discretion to refuse stays despite pending CJEU referrals.

The Düsseldorf Local Division partially upheld a patent relating to multimedia content sharing in peer-to-peer configurations and found indirect infringement by Disney's streaming service. The decision addresses critical issues of claim construction, patent validity, and procedural aspects while applying established UPC case law on inventive step testing.

The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court addresses the procedural requirements for obtaining suspensive effect when filing an application for rehearing under Article 81(2) UPCA. The decision clarifies that suspensive effect is not automatic and requires independent substantiation beyond the grounds for rehearing itself, with applicants needing to demonstrate concrete, irreparable prejudice to justify departure from the default rule of continued enforceability.

The Munich Central Division of the Unified Patent Court addressed critical procedural and substantive questions in a revocation action concerning European Patent EP 4 226 039. The court examined the burden of proof required to establish lack of entitlement under Art. 138(1)(e) EPC, the court's discretion to assess dependent claims in stand-alone revocation proceedings, and the evidentiary value of Wayback Machine screenshots for proving public availability of online prior art.

The Local Division Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court addresses parallel infringement and revocation proceedings involving dental implant technology patent EP 3 402 420 B1. The case involves Versah LLC asserting patent rights against multiple defendants across nine European jurisdictions, with one defendant withdrawing following settlement while others continue to contest both infringement claims and patent validity.

Violation of principle of party disposition constitutes “manifest error” The Court of First Instance is strictly bound by the relief requested according to Art. 76(1) UPCA and cannot award more than is requested. In case a court awards more than is requested (e.g. change of “and”-warning into “or”-disclaimer) this constitutes a manifest error under Art. 76(1) UPCA (cf. Court of Appeal, UPC_CoA_388/2024, Sibio v. Abbott).