by Chloe Sullivan | Jan 20, 2026 | UPC
To briefly recap the key events leading up to this decision, the US Supreme Court found a lack of enablement when assessing the PCSK9 antibody claims in Amgen’s US patent and the Munich Central Division of the UPC initially revoked the European equivalent based on...
by Luke Pettit | Jan 15, 2026 | UPC
Background The UPC Court of Appeal’s decision in Otec v. Steros provides an interesting insight into claim interpretation and the constraints on relying on post-filing experimental evidence at the UPC. The case, UPC Court of Appeal decision 579/2025, arose from a...
by David Eyre | Jun 10, 2025 | UPC
The jurisprudence of the United Patent Court (UPC) is relatively new. Thus, a question of ongoing interest is to what extent the UPC will follow the jurisprudence of the European Patent Office (EPO) and/or one of the UPC member states was not fully known. The...
by Sean Hughes | May 28, 2025 | UPC
Munich Local Division Endorses EPO’s Problem-Solution Approach In Edwards Lifesciences vs Meril (UPC_CFI_501/2023), the Munich Local Division (LD) has affirmed the use of the problem-solution approach (PSA) for assessing inventive step. The PSA, a method long...
by Luke Pettit | Apr 8, 2025 | EPO, UPC
Background The decision (UPC CFI 355/2023) of the UPC’s Düsseldorf Local Division relates to European patent EP 3594009, owned by Fujifilm. The patent was validated and remained in force in both Germany and the United Kingdom. Fujifilm initiated an infringement action...
by David Eyre | Mar 4, 2025 | EPO, UPC
Article 84 EPC seems clear in stating that “the claims shall define the matter for which protection is sought”. More recently, the Unified Patent Court (UPC) on the face of it appears to concur. UPC Court of Appeal decision 335/2023 states “The Patent Claim is not...
Recent Comments