Artificial Intelligence Patent Case Law Walkthrough (Video)

The European Union's Cyber Resilience Act introduces mandatory cybersecurity requirements for products with digital elements, with critical notification obligations taking effect in September 2026.

This page appears to be a security verification checkpoint that temporarily blocks access while validating the incoming request. The system implements protective measures to distinguish legitimate users from automated traffic or potential security threats.

This page appears to be a security verification checkpoint that temporarily blocks access while validating the incoming request. The system implements protective measures to distinguish legitimate users from automated traffic or potential security threats.

Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer's Frankfurt Corporate Crime & Investigations team hosted a conference examining cybercrime threats, AI-driven attacks, and the evolving responsibilities of corporate leadership in building cyber resilience. Senior representatives from law enforcement, industry leaders, and global legal partners explored prevention strategies, incident response protocols, and the complex liability landscape facing organizations in an increasingly digital threat environment.

Businesses increasingly turn to artificial intelligence for document review and legal analysis, but this technological shortcut may expose organizations to significant risks and liabilities. Understanding the limitations and potential pitfalls of AI-powered legal document examination is crucial for companies seeking to balance efficiency with accuracy and compliance.

The European Commission has published draft guidelines interpreting the AI Act's transparency obligations, establishing when and how organizations must disclose AI-generated content, deepfakes, and automated interactions. These guidelines clarify that deepfake labeling applies regardless of intent to deceive, that AI systems must identify themselves at the point of interaction, and that the editorial review exception for AI-generated text requires substantive human oversight with clear accountability.

We invited Stijn Broecke, senior economist at the AI Observatory in the OECD, to have a chat with Burkard Göpfert partner at our German law firm and give his view on what the data is telling us now...

The European Commission has published draft guidelines interpreting the AI Act's transparency obligations, establishing when and how organizations must disclose AI-generated content, deepfakes, and automated interactions. These guidelines clarify that deepfake labeling applies regardless of intent to deceive, that AI systems must identify themselves at the point of interaction, and that the editorial review exception for AI-generated text requires substantive human oversight with clear accountability.

The rise of generative and agentic AI is fundamentally disrupting the SaaS sector, threatening traditional seat-based pricing models and creating a stark divide between resilient platforms and vulnerable mid-market vendors. As AI-driven competition intensifies and a significant refinancing wave approaches in 2027-28, private equity sponsors and lenders face unprecedented challenges in evaluating software investments and managing portfolio risk.

In this episode of the World Retail Podcast, retail leaders explore the critical foundations of sustainable growth in today's challenging retail environment. Sergio Bucher of Otto Group shares insights on building operational excellence, integrating technology infrastructure, and balancing performance with culture.

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).