Coverage since February 25, 2025

European Union

Uncategorized

UPC Court of Appeal — Amgen v. Sanofi & Regeneron (UPC_CoA_528/2024) — Sets Out the UPC’s Inventive-Step Framework: Realistic Starting Point, Objective Problem, “Would Not Could”

In a same-day companion ruling to Meril v. Edwards, the UPC Court of Appeal articulated a comprehensive inventive-step framework: identify the objective problem from the perspective of the skilled person, choose a realistic starting point in the prior art, and assess whether the skilled person &#821

Uncategorized

Meril v. Edwards Lifesciences (UPC_CoA_464/2024 et al., EP 3 646 825) — UPC Court of Appeal Same-Day Companion to Amgen v. Sanofi: “Same Parties” Test, Embodiment Coverage, and Non-Obvious-Alternative Inventive Step

Same-day companion to Amgen v. Sanofi/Regeneron, the UPC Court of Appeal in Meril v. Edwards held that the ‘same parties’ test under Art. 33(4) UPCA looks to identity of interests; that disclosed embodiments are generally covered by the patent claims unless the specification clearly teac

Uncategorized

UPC Court of Appeal — Boehringer Ingelheim v. Zentiva (UPC_CoA_446/2025) — Marketing Authorisation Alone Does Not Imminent-Infringe, But Completion of National Pricing & Reimbursement Procedures Can

The UPC Court of Appeal set out a workable test for when a generic pharmaceutical’s pre-launch activity creates an imminent threat of infringement supporting provisional measures: a bare marketing authorisation does not, but completion of national health-technology-assessment, pricing, and rei

Uncategorized

UPC Local Division Düsseldorf — Sanofi & Regeneron v. Amgen (UPC_CFI_505/2024) — Framework for Infringement of Second Medical-Use Claims and Rejection of “Pleading Ignorance”

The UPC Düsseldorf Local Division articulated the substantive framework for second medical-use claim infringement: the alleged infringer must offer or place the medicinal product on the market in a way that leads or may lead to the claimed therapeutic use, with knowledge or constructive knowledge th

Uncategorized

BSH Hausgeräte v. Electrolux (C-339/22) — CJEU Grand Chamber Holds EU Member-State Courts Have Cross-Border Jurisdiction Over European Patent Infringement Outside Their Forum, Even When Validity Defenses Are Raised

The CJEU Grand Chamber held that Article 4(1) of Regulation 1215/2012 entitles a court of a defendant’s domicile member state to hear infringement claims regarding a European patent’s national parts validated in other member states (and even in non-EU states), notwithstanding invalidity

Scroll to Top