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 — 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

BGH “Testarossa” — Federal Court of Justice Affirms BPatG Ruling That Ferrari’s Bad-Faith Challenge to “Testa Rossa” Trademark Fails Without Proof of Damaging or Obstructing Intent

Germany’s Federal Court of Justice dismissed Ferrari’s appeal challenging the “Testa Rossa” trademark, leaving in place the BPatG’s January 2025 ruling that bad-faith trademark applications under § 8(2) No. 10 MarkenG require objective evidence of damaging or obstructin

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

Scroll to Top