Patent case law explorer
DHENNE AVOCATS · LE LAB
Compare decisions and understand outcomes. Explore patent case law and concrete examples of compensation, evidence preservation and preliminary injunctions.
What the courts actually decided
Compare the type of relief, its outcome and the procedural stage. Every row links to the decision.
| Case and court | Outcome / amount | What this means |
|---|---|---|
| Minakem v MMLS / M2I SalinCour d’appel de Paris 2024-02-09 RG 22/03911 |
1 941 000 EURPatent infringement damages |
EUR 1,941,000 in compensation, less the EUR 500,000 already paid. Fine-chemistry process; penalties and costs are separate. Merits award at this stage; subsequent history not checked. Read the sourceDispositif / Operative part |
| Oerlikon v BhagatJUB · Milan / UPC · Milan 2024-11-04 UPC_CFI_241/2023 |
15 000 EURInterim damages |
EUR 15,000 interim damages out of EUR 100,000 requested, for offering a textile machine at a trade fair. EUR 12,000 per breach is a separate penalty; EUR 750,000 is the value of the dispute. Read the source§§ 11.5–11.8 ; dispositif 4 / order 4 |
| Samsung v AppleIP High Court · Japon / Japan 2014-05-16 2013 (Ne) 10043 |
9 955 854 JPYClaim cap · declaratory judgment |
The declaratory judgment caps the claim for products 2 and 4 at JPY 9,955,854 before interest. FRAND royalty basis; this is not a general payment order. Read the sourcepp. 138–139 (PDF 148–149) |
| Microsoft v MotorolaUS Court of Appeals · Ninth Circuit 2015-07-30 14-35393 |
14 520 000 USDRAND contract damages |
USD 14.52m contractual award affirmed: USD 11.49m relocation and USD 3.03m legal costs. Breach of RAND obligations, distinct from patent infringement damages. Read the sourcepp. 15–16 et 64 / and 64 |
| InterDigital v LenovoCourt of Appeal · Royaume-Uni / UK 2024-07-12 [2024] EWCA Civ 743 |
178 300 000 USDGlobal licence · not damages |
Global licence set on appeal at USD 178.3m before interest. Adjustments to comparables determine the rate; this is licence consideration, not an infringement damages award. Read the source§ 284 |
| Oerlikon v BhagatJUB · Milan / UPC · Milan 2023-06-14 UPC_CFI_141/2023 |
GrantedEvidence preservation |
Ex parte preservation of technical and commercial documents at ITMA granted. No security required in these circumstances. An evidential measure, distinct from a sales injunction. Read the source§§ 4.3–4.7 ; dispositif / order |
| Progress Maschinen v AWM / SchnellJUB · Milan / UPC · Milan 2023-09-25 UPC_CFI_286/2023 et 287/2023 |
GrantedEvidence preservation |
Ex parte inspection and preservation granted, subject to EUR 50,000 security. Limited to Girderflex machines; access to the report requires a later order. Two joined proceedings, one order. Read the source§ 6.7 ; dispositif pp. 10–12 / order pp. 10–12 |
| C-KORE v NovawellJUB · Paris / UPC · Paris 2023-11-14 UPC_CFI_397/2023 |
GrantedEvidence preservation |
Ex parte evidence preservation granted for subsea testing equipment, subject to EUR 20,000 security. Court-appointed expert, restricted access and use confined to the merits proceedings. Read the sourceDispositif pp. 7–9 / order pp. 7–9 |
| Novawell v C-KORE · réexamen / reviewJUB · Paris / UPC · Paris 2024-03-01 UPC_CFI_397/2023 |
Maintained / affirmedEvidence preservation |
Review application dismissed in full: the order of 14 November 2023 is maintained. This concerns the same preservation measure, not a second initial grant. Read the sourcep. 9, motifs et dispositif / reasons and order |
| Philips France Commercial v ThalesCour d’appel de Paris 2023-02-14 RG 22/16659 |
Maintained / affirmedEvidence preservation |
Refusal to revoke an evidence-gathering order affirmed in a FRAND negotiation. Article 145 French CPC measure, distinct from a patent saisie-contrefaçon under Article L.615-5. Document selection and privilege safeguarded. Read the source§§ 89–90 ; dispositif / operative part |
| Ecoperl / Bricoperl v NeoperlTribunal judiciaire de Paris 2024-02-02 RG 23/12720 |
Maintained / affirmedEvidence preservation |
Revocation of seven orders refused; the application to invalidate execution was inadmissible before this judge. Plumbing devices. One review decision, not seven new decisions. Read the source§§ 23–30 ; dispositif / operative part |
| Samsung v AppleRechtbank Den Haag 2011-10-14 KG ZA 11-818 · ECLI:NL:RBSGR:2011:BT7610 |
RefusedPreliminary injunctions |
Preliminary injunction refused in this UMTS SEP dispute: the proprietor’s offer and FRAND negotiations are decisive. This decision predates Huawei v ZTE. Read the sourceMotifs et dispositif / Reasons and operative part |
| Sisvel v XiaomiGerechtshof Den Haag 2020-03-17 200.265.385/01 · ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2020:711 |
RefusedPreliminary injunctions |
Refusal of the injunction affirmed after balancing the interests. Security offered is relevant. The EUR 653,352.71 in the order represents litigation costs, not damages. Read the source§§ 4.1–4.20 ; dispositif 5.1–5.3 / order |
| Nokia v OleadingRechtbank Den Haag 2023-01-11 KG ZA 22-1045 · ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2023:172 |
RefusedPreliminary injunctions |
Preliminary injunction refused: financial harm covered by security was weighed against serious consequences for distributors. Specific to interim relief and the facts of this case. Read the sourceMotifs et dispositif / Reasons and operative part |
| Neurim v Generics UKCourt of Appeal · Royaume-Uni / UK 2020-06-24 [2020] EWCA Civ 793 |
RefusedPreliminary injunctions |
Refusal affirmed: damages are adequate for the period before trial. The court emphasises the unusual facts; it does not assess a damages amount. Read the source§§ 54–57 |
| AstraZeneca v GlenmarkCourt of Appeal · Royaume-Uni / UK 2025-04-16 [2025] EWCA Civ 480 |
GrantedPreliminary injunctions |
Injunction granted until the conclusion of the form-of-order hearing, preserving the status quo in light of new evidence. Any extension beyond that requires a separate assessment. Read the source§ 91 |
| Mylan / Viatris v MSDCour d’appel de Paris 2024-01-12 RG 22/16673 |
Maintained / affirmedPreliminary injunctions |
Preliminary injunction affirmed for sitagliptin/metformin. Withdrawal of the cassation appeal recorded on 7 January 2026 (24-12.551). EUR 60,000 under Article 700 is costs, not infringement compensation. Read the sourceDispositif / Operative part |
| Novartis v Sanofi / ZentivaCour de cassation · France 2014-09-16 13-10.189 |
Revoked / reversedPreliminary injunctions |
Revocation of the ex parte injunction left standing when the appeal was dismissed: an inter partes hearing remained possible before SPC expiry. Not a general rejection of interim relief. Read the sourceRéponse au deuxième moyen ; dispositif / second ground and operative part |
| myStromer v Revolt ZyclingJUB · Düsseldorf / UPC · Düsseldorf 2023-06-22 UPC_CFI_177/2023 |
GrantedPreliminary injunctions |
Ex parte injunction at Eurobike covering Germany, the Netherlands, France and Italy. EUR 500,000 security due within ten days; EUR 11,000 interim costs, not damages. Read the sourceDispositif I–VI / Order I–VI |
| 10x Genomics v NanoString · première instance / first instanceJUB · Munich / UPC · Munich 2023-09-19 UPC_CFI_2/2023 |
GrantedPreliminary injunctions |
Provisional measures granted on EP 4 108 782. Reversed on 26 February 2024: read both decisions together, not as two independent disputes. Read the sourceDispositif A–G / Order A–G |
| NanoString v 10x Genomics · appel / appealJUB · Cour d’appel / UPC · Court of Appeal 2024-02-26 UPC_CoA_335/2023 |
Revoked / reversedPreliminary injunctions |
Injunction of 19 September 2023 reversed: invalidity for lack of inventive step appears more likely than validity. An interim assessment, not final patent revocation. Read the sourceMotifs 4.d.aa et 5.a ; dispositif / Reasons and order |
| Ballinno v UEFA / KinexonJUB · Hambourg / UPC · Hamburg 2024-06-03 UPC_CFI_151/2024 |
RefusedPreliminary injunctions |
Application dismissed: lack of urgency, including almost three months without meaningful investigation, and insufficiently established infringement. Football video-assistant-referee technology. Read the sourceSommaire ; dispositif 1 / Headnotes; order 1 |
| SES-imagotag v HanshowJUB · Cour d’appel / UPC · Court of Appeal 2024-05-13 UPC_CoA_1/2024 |
RefusedPreliminary injunctions |
Refusal affirmed: the products do not, on the balance of probabilities, implement all claimed features. Electronic shelf labels; the technical infringement case is decisive. Read the source§§ 44–47 ; dispositif / order |
| Ortovox v Mammut · réexamen / reviewJUB · Düsseldorf / UPC · Düsseldorf 2024-04-09 UPC_CFI_452/2023 |
Maintained / affirmedPreliminary injunctions |
Injunction of 11 December 2023 maintained with EUR 500,000 security. Avalanche transceivers; subsequently upheld on appeal on 25 September 2024. Read the sourceDispositif I–IV / Order I–IV |
| Mammut v Ortovox · appel / appealJUB · Cour d’appel / UPC · Court of Appeal 2024-09-25 UPC_CoA_182/2024 |
Maintained / affirmedPreliminary injunctions |
Appeal dismissed: provisional measures remain in force. The additional EUR 19,858.40 is an interim costs award, not damages. Same procedural chain as the review of 9 April 2024. Read the sourceDispositif 2–4 / Order 2–4 |
Amounts in their original currency, without conversion or cross-system averages. Claims, interim damages, royalties, security, penalties and costs are not interchangeable. First-instance, review and appeal decisions remain separate and may concern the same dispute.
Find and compare decisions
Combine filters, then compare the selected records.
Decisions and sources
G 1/25 — adapting the description
Technical field: Chemistry and materials · Cross-sector relevance
Issues: Claim interpretation · Procedure
G 1/25 · ECLI:EP:BA:2026:G000125.20260903
Context: Hydroponic growing media; referral on adapting the description after claim amendments.
Issue and holding: Adaptation is required where an amendment creates an inconsistency causing non-compliance with the EPC provisions identified in the order.
Practical relevance: Identify the inconsistency and the legal requirement affected.
Framework and scope: EPO framework. Read alongside G 1/24; this is not an infringement ruling.
Official source · Dispositif / Order
G 1/24 — interpreting claims · Glossary · Our practice
Last documentary verification: 2026-10-12.
Tesla v InterDigital and Avanci (UKSC, [2026] UKSC 27, 2026)
[2026] UKSC 27 ; sur appel de [2025] EWCA Civ 193 ·
The Supreme Court allowed Tesla’s appeal: there is a serious issue to be tried on whether the Avanci 5G Platform licence is FRAND, the claims relate to InterDigital’s UK SEPs and the English court has jurisdiction, the Delaware Court of Chancery not being an available forum.
Read the decision in its procedural and technical context.
Read the detailed record for scope and limitations; topic labels are not procedural outcomes.
Acer v Nokia (EWCA, [2026] EWCA Civ 564, 2026)
[2026] EWCA Civ 564 ; CA-2026-000349 ·
The English court has jurisdiction over Acer’s and ASUS’s RAND claims under gateway 11, but Nokia’s offer of an immediate licence adjustable by an ICC arbitral award is a RAND offer; the claims were stayed and the interim licence declarations discharged.
Read the decision in its procedural and technical context.
Read the detailed record for scope and limitations; topic labels are not procedural outcomes.
Samsung v ZTE (EWHC (Pat), [2026] EWHC 999 (Pat), 2026)
[2026] EWHC 999 (Pat) ; HP-2024-000044 ·
The FRAND lump sum payable by Samsung under the global cross-licence is $392m, based on the 2020 ZTE-Apple licence adjusted for non-FRAND factors, Samsung’s licences with other licensors being rejected as comparables.
Read the decision in its procedural and technical context.
Read the detailed record for scope and limitations; topic labels are not procedural outcomes.
ZTE v Samsung (LG München I, 7 O 64/25, 2026)
7 O 64/25 ·
With no comparable licence, ZTE’s offer is placed within the FRAND corridor by a top-down analysis (USD 170, 8 % aggregate burden, 5.7 % share); the FRAND defence fails and an injunction is granted.
Read the decision in its procedural and technical context.
Read the detailed record for scope and limitations; topic labels are not procedural outcomes.
FRAND-Einwand III (BGH, KZR 10/25, 2026)
KZR 10/25 ·
Huawei v ZTE does not impose a strict order of steps: the implementer must respond promptly to a substantially complete offer, without the court first checking that it is FRAND, and provide consistent security. Absent willingness, the competition law defence and the proportionality objection fail, and no reference is made to the CJEU.
Read the decision in its procedural and technical context.
Read the detailed record for scope and limitations; topic labels are not procedural outcomes.
InterDigital v prospective licensees (LG München I, 21 O 12112/25, 2025)
21 O 12112/25 ·
The court upholds the prohibition on seeking an interim licence over German patents from the High Court, as contrary to territoriality and to the Huawei v ZTE balance, and distinct from a prohibited anti-suit injunction.
Read the decision in its procedural and technical context.
Read the detailed record for scope and limitations; topic labels are not procedural outcomes.
Samsung v ZTE (EWCA, [2025] EWCA Civ 1383, 2025)
[2025] EWCA Civ 1383 ; CA-2025-001926 ·
Absent a legitimate and substantiated objection to the chosen forum, a SEP owner that brings injunction proceedings to force FRAND determination in its preferred forum does not act in bad faith; the declarations based on such bad faith were set aside.
Read the decision in its procedural and technical context.
Read the detailed record for scope and limitations; topic labels are not procedural outcomes.
ModernaTX v Pfizer (EWCA, [2025] EWCA Civ 1032, 2025)
[2025] EWCA Civ 1032 (CA-2024-002295 et CA-2024-002325) ·
Claim 3 of EP949 (mRNA with 100% replacement of uridine by m1Ψ) is novel over UPenn, which contains no individualised disclosure of the combination selected from two lists, and is not obvious; Pfizer and BioNTech’s appeal is dismissed.
Read the decision in its procedural and technical context.
Read the detailed record for scope and limitations; topic labels are not procedural outcomes.
Generics (UK) v AstraZeneca (EWCA, [2025] EWCA Civ 903, 2025)
[2025] EWCA Civ 903 (CA-2025-001040) ·
The dapagliflozin patent, which did not make its antidiabetic utility plausible and was an arbitrary selection from WO 128, is invalid for lack of inventive step and insufficiency, and so are the SPCs; G 2/21 does not justify departing from Sandoz v BMS.
Read the decision in its procedural and technical context.
Read the detailed record for scope and limitations; topic labels are not procedural outcomes.
Biogen v Sandoz, Viatris and Mepha (BPatGer, S2024_005 to S2024_007, 2025)
S2024_005, S2024_006, S2024_007 ·
Preliminary measures against three dimethyl fumarate generics are refused: the claimed 480 mg daily dose is likely obvious over the Kappos I phase II study.
Read the decision in its procedural and technical context.
Read the detailed record for scope and limitations; topic labels are not procedural outcomes.
Mitsui Chemicals v Borealis (EPO, G 1/23, 2025)
G 1/23 · ECLI:EP:BA:2025:G000123.20250702
A product put on the market before the filing date cannot be excluded from the state of the art solely because its composition or internal structure could not be analysed and reproduced; public technical information about it is also state of the art.
Read the decision in its procedural and technical context.
Read the detailed record for scope and limitations; topic labels are not procedural outcomes.
G 1/24 — interpreting claims
Technical field: Mechanical engineering · Cross-sector relevance
Issues: Claim interpretation · Validity
G 1/24 · JO OEB 2025, A60
Context: Aerosol-generating article; referral arising from T 439/22.
Issue and holding: For patentability, claims remain the starting point; the description and drawings must always be consulted, even where the wording appears clear.
Practical relevance: Read the claim in its technical context.
Framework and scope: Articles 52–57 EPC. See G 1/25 on the distinct issue of adapting the description.
Official source · Sommaire / Headnote
T 439/22 — the referral leading to G 1/24 · G 1/25 — adapting the description · NanoString v 10x Genomics — provisional measures · Glossary · Our practice
Last documentary verification: 2026-10-12.
Optis v Apple (EWCA, [2025] EWCA Civ 552, 2025)
[2025] EWCA Civ 552 ; CA-2024-000695 ·
The Court of Appeal set Apple’s worldwide FRAND licence at USD 0.15 per unit, a lump sum of USD 502m before interest for 2013 to 2027, and treated Optis’s Texas judgment as a floor for the royalties.
Read the decision in its procedural and technical context.
Read the detailed record for scope and limitations; topic labels are not procedural outcomes.
AstraZeneca v Glenmark Pharmaceuticals (EWCA, [2025] EWCA Civ 480, 2025)
[2025] EWCA Civ 480 (CA-2025-000746) ·
In the light of new evidence that further generic entry was certain, there was real doubt as to the adequacy of damages for both sides; the status quo was preserved and an interim injunction granted until the form of order hearing.
Read the decision in its procedural and technical context.
Read the detailed record for scope and limitations; topic labels are not procedural outcomes.
EVS SEP holder v mobile phone distributor (OLG München, 6 U 3824/22 Kart, 2025)
6 U 3824/22 Kart ·
Absent qualified security based on the holder’s last offer and covering the worldwide portfolio licence proposed, the FRAND defence fails without the offer being examined; the injunction is upheld.
Read the decision in its procedural and technical context.
Read the detailed record for scope and limitations; topic labels are not procedural outcomes.
Tesla v InterDigital and Avanci (EWCA, [2025] EWCA Civ 193, 2025)
[2025] EWCA Civ 193 ; CA-2024-001749 ·
By a majority, the Court of Appeal dismissed Tesla’s appeal: the FRAND undertaking does not oblige SEP owners to license collectively, so there is no serious issue to be tried on whether the Avanci 5G Platform licence is FRAND; Arnold LJ dissented.
Read the decision in its procedural and technical context.
Read the detailed record for scope and limitations; topic labels are not procedural outcomes.
Lenovo v Ericsson (EWCA, [2025] EWCA Civ 182, 2025)
[2025] EWCA Civ 182 ; CA-2024-002821 ·
Ericsson is in breach of its good faith obligation under clause 6.1 by pursuing injunctions abroad although Lenovo has undertaken to enter into the cross-licence determined by the Patents Court; a willing licensor would grant an interim licence, with the royalty set at the mid-point between the offers.
Read the decision in its procedural and technical context.
Read the detailed record for scope and limitations; topic labels are not procedural outcomes.
Janssen Biotech v Samsung Bioepis (Gerechtshof Den Haag, 200.337.844/01, 2025)
200.337.844/01 · ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2025:542
The manufacturing for export waiver requires neither a third country marketing authorisation at notification nor a country free of rights, and permits stockpiling for entry as soon as rights expire; the dismissal of the holder’s claims is upheld.
Read the decision in its procedural and technical context.
Read the detailed record for scope and limitations; topic labels are not procedural outcomes.
Merck Serono v Comptroller-General of Patents (EWCA, [2025] EWCA Civ 45, 2025)
[2025] EWCA Civ 45 (CA-2024-000545) ·
Bound by its decision in Newron, which applied Santen, the Court of Appeal could not depart from Santen and would not have done so in any event; the SPC for cladribine fails under Article 3(d) because of earlier MAs for another indication.
Read the decision in its procedural and technical context.
Read the detailed record for scope and limitations; topic labels are not procedural outcomes.
Alcatel Lucent v Amazon (EWCA, [2025] EWCA Civ 43, 2025)
[2025] EWCA Civ 43 ; CA-2024-002342 ·
Amazon’s claim for a declaration that Nokia would grant an interim licence of its RAND video portfolio, and for specific performance of that licence, has a real prospect of success; the amendments refused at first instance were allowed.
Read the decision in its procedural and technical context.
Read the detailed record for scope and limitations; topic labels are not procedural outcomes.
Teva and Others v Merck Sharp & Dohme and Merck Sharp & Dohme v Clonmel (CJEU, C-119/22 and C-149/22, 2024)
C-119/22 et C-149/22 (affaires jointes) ·
Article 3(c) does not preclude an SPC for a combination where one ingredient already had an SPC; under Article 3(a), express mention of a combination in the claims is not enough, as it must necessarily fall under the invention.
Read the decision in its procedural and technical context.
Read the detailed record for scope and limitations; topic labels are not procedural outcomes.
Oerlikon v Bhagat
UPC_CFI_241/2023
EUR 15,000 interim damages out of EUR 100,000 requested, for offering a textile machine at a trade fair. EUR 12,000 per breach is a separate penalty; EUR 750,000 is the value of the dispute.
Read the order and distinguish the initial measure from its subsequent review.
Outcome at the stated stage. Subsequent developments are mentioned only where identified.
Detailed analysis · Official source · §§ 11.5–11.8 ; dispositif 4 / order 4
Panasonic v Xiaomi (EWCA, [2024] EWCA Civ 1143, 2024)
[2024] EWCA Civ 1143 ; CA-2024-001709 ·
A SEP holder which has asked the English court to set a global licence and undertaken to enter into it breaches its clause 6.1 duty of good faith by pursuing injunctions abroad. The majority declared that a willing licensor would grant an interim licence on the terms set by the court.
Read the decision in its procedural and technical context.
Read the detailed record for scope and limitations; topic labels are not procedural outcomes.
Motorola Mobility v Ericsson (EWCA, [2024] EWCA Civ 1100, 2024)
[2024] EWCA Civ 1100 ; CA-2024-001320 ·
The interim injunction based on a UK patent essential to 5G was refused: loss caused by the alleged UK infringement is compensable in money, and losses suffered abroad due to the opponent’s injunctions are not caused by that infringement.
Read the decision in its procedural and technical context.
Read the detailed record for scope and limitations; topic labels are not procedural outcomes.
Mammut v Ortovox · appel / appeal
UPC_CoA_182/2024
Appeal dismissed: provisional measures remain in force. The additional EUR 19,858.40 is an interim costs award, not damages. Same procedural chain as the review of 9 April 2024.
Read the order and distinguish the initial measure from its subsequent review.
Outcome at the stated stage. Subsequent developments are mentioned only where identified.
Detailed analysis · Official source · Dispositif 2–4 / Order 2–4
Accord Healthcare v Sanofi (Paris Judicial Court, RG 21/06416, 2024)
RG 21/06416 ·
The French part of EP 2 493 466 (cabazitaxel after docetaxel) is annulled for lack of inventive step, the Tropic trial announced before priority giving a reasonable expectation of success; the infringement action is dismissed.
Read the decision in its procedural and technical context.
Read the detailed record for scope and limitations; topic labels are not procedural outcomes.
InterDigital v Lenovo (EWCA, [2024] EWCA Civ 743, 2024)
[2024] EWCA Civ 743 ; CA-2023-001489 et CA-2023-001492 ·
A court-determined FRAND licence covers all past sales irrespective of limitation and carries compound interest at 4%. The rate derived from the comparable licence had to be corrected for non-FRAND discounts on past sales, and the lump sum was increased to $178.3 million before interest.
Read the decision in its procedural and technical context.
Read the detailed record for scope and limitations; topic labels are not procedural outcomes.
Panasonic v Xiaomi (EWHC (Pat), [2024] EWHC 1733 (Pat), 2024)
[2024] EWHC 1733 (Pat) ; HP-2023-000025 ·
Good faith performance of the FRAND undertaking does not require a SEP holder that has undertaken to enter into the court-determined licence to grant an interim licence. The declaration was also refused for want of utility and out of comity towards the German courts.
Read the decision in its procedural and technical context.
Read the detailed record for scope and limitations; topic labels are not procedural outcomes.
T 439/22 — the referral leading to G 1/24
Technical field: Mechanical engineering · Cross-sector relevance
Issues: Claim interpretation · Novelty · Procedure
T 439/22 · JO OEB 2024, A104 · EP 3 076 804
Context: Opposition to an aerosol-generating article patent; meaning of “gathered sheet”.
Issue and holding: The Board refers questions on the role of the description in interpreting claims for patentability.
Practical relevance: Connect claim interpretation with the novelty assessment.
Framework and scope: Referral decision, not a final validity ruling. G 1/24 answers the referral in the same proceedings.
Official source · Faits I–II ; dispositif / Facts I–II; order
G 1/24 — interpreting claims · Glossary · Our practice
Last documentary verification: 2026-10-12.
Ballinno v UEFA / Kinexon
UPC_CFI_151/2024
Application dismissed: lack of urgency, including almost three months without meaningful investigation, and insufficiently established infringement. Football video-assistant-referee technology.
Read the order and distinguish the initial measure from its subsequent review.
Outcome at the stated stage. Subsequent developments are mentioned only where identified.
Detailed analysis · Official source · Sommaire ; dispositif 1 / Headnotes; order 1
SES-imagotag v Hanshow
UPC_CoA_1/2024
Refusal affirmed: the products do not, on the balance of probabilities, implement all claimed features. Electronic shelf labels; the technical infringement case is decisive.
Read the order and distinguish the initial measure from its subsequent review.
Outcome at the stated stage. Subsequent developments are mentioned only where identified.
Detailed analysis · Official source · §§ 44–47 ; dispositif / order
Ortovox v Mammut · réexamen / review
UPC_CFI_452/2023
Injunction of 11 December 2023 maintained with EUR 500,000 security. Avalanche transceivers; subsequently upheld on appeal on 25 September 2024.
Read the order and distinguish the initial measure from its subsequent review.
Outcome at the stated stage. Subsequent developments are mentioned only where identified.
Detailed analysis · Official source · Dispositif I–IV / Order I–IV
Mepha v Bristol-Myers Squibb (BPatGer, O2022_007, 2024)
O2022_007 ·
The nullity action against the Swiss apixaban SPC is dismissed: the US priority is valid through a tacit transfer, and the technical effect, derivable from the application within the meaning of G 2/21, supports inventive step.
Read the decision in its procedural and technical context.
Read the detailed record for scope and limitations; topic labels are not procedural outcomes.
Novawell v C-KORE · réexamen / review
UPC_CFI_397/2023
Review application dismissed in full: the order of 14 November 2023 is maintained. This concerns the same preservation measure, not a second initial grant.
Read the order and distinguish the initial measure from its subsequent review.
Outcome at the stated stage. Subsequent developments are mentioned only where identified.
Detailed analysis · Official source · p. 9, motifs et dispositif / reasons and order
NanoString v 10x Genomics — provisional measures
Technical field: Biotechnology
Issues: Claim interpretation · Inventive step · Injunctions and provisional measures · Validity
UPC_CoA_335/2023 · APL_576355/2023 · EP 4 108 782
Context: Optical detection of molecules; appeal against a preliminary injunction. Order of 26 February, corrected on 11 March 2024.
Issue and holding: The Court reverses the injunction: invalidity for lack of inventive step appears more likely than validity. The description and drawings inform claim interpretation.
Practical relevance: Prepare validity and infringement arguments together.
Framework and scope: Article 62 UPCA, Rule 211.2 and Article 69 EPC. Interim assessment, not final revocation.
Official source · Motifs / Reasons 4.d.aa et 5.a
Full analysis and corrected order · G 1/24 — interpreting claims · Glossary · Our practice
Last documentary verification: 2026-10-12.
Minakem v MMLS / M2I Salin
RG 22/03911
EUR 1,941,000 in compensation, less the EUR 500,000 already paid. Fine-chemistry process; penalties and costs are separate. Merits award at this stage; subsequent history not checked.
Read the order and distinguish the initial measure from its subsequent review.
Outcome at the stated stage. Subsequent developments are mentioned only where identified.
Official source · Dispositif / Operative part
Ecoperl / Bricoperl v Neoperl
RG 23/12720
Revocation of seven orders refused; the application to invalidate execution was inadmissible before this judge. Plumbing devices. One review decision, not seven new decisions.
Read the order and distinguish the initial measure from its subsequent review.
Outcome at the stated stage. Subsequent developments are mentioned only where identified.
Official source · §§ 23–30 ; dispositif / operative part
Mylan v Merck Sharp & Dohme (CA Paris, RG 22/16673, 2024)
RG 22/16673 ·
The provisional ban on sitagliptin and metformin generics is upheld: the combination being expressly claimed, the Teva v Gilead test is unnecessary, and Article 3(c) refers to a granted certificate, not an earlier application.
Read the decision in its procedural and technical context.
Read the detailed record for scope and limitations; topic labels are not procedural outcomes.
Mylan v Gilead Sciences Finland and Others (CJEU, C-473/22, 2024)
C-473/22 ·
Article 9(7) of Directive 2004/48 does not preclude a national regime of no-fault liability of the applicant for provisional measures, provided the court can adjust damages to the circumstances, including the defendant’s contribution to its loss.
Read the decision in its procedural and technical context.
Read the detailed record for scope and limitations; topic labels are not procedural outcomes.
C-KORE v Novawell
UPC_CFI_397/2023
Ex parte evidence preservation granted for subsea testing equipment, subject to EUR 20,000 security. Court-appointed expert, restricted access and use confined to the merits proceedings.
Read the order and distinguish the initial measure from its subsequent review.
Outcome at the stated stage. Subsequent developments are mentioned only where identified.
Detailed analysis · Official source · Dispositif pp. 7–9 / order pp. 7–9
Standardessentielle Mobilfunknetz-Patente (OLG Karlsruhe, 6 U 204/22 Kart, 2023)
6 U 204/22 Kart · ECLI:DE:OLGKARL:2023:1011.6U204.22KART.00
The licensed operator’s claim is dismissed: the licence is not discriminatory, the clause excluding a duty to pursue third parties waives damages claims, and the SEP holder does not guarantee the success of its efforts against competitors.
Read the decision in its procedural and technical context.
Read the detailed record for scope and limitations; topic labels are not procedural outcomes.
Alexion Pharmaceuticals v Novartis (EPO, G 1/22 and G 2/22, 2023)
G 1/22 et G 2/22 · ECLI:EP:BA:2023:G000122.20231010
The EPO is competent to assess entitlement to priority; entitlement is presumed, rebuttably and under the autonomous law of the EPC, in favour of an applicant claiming priority under Article 88(1) EPC, including for jointly filed PCT applications.
Read the decision in its procedural and technical context.
Read the detailed record for scope and limitations; topic labels are not procedural outcomes.
Progress Maschinen v AWM / Schnell
UPC_CFI_286/2023 et 287/2023
Ex parte inspection and preservation granted, subject to EUR 50,000 security. Limited to Girderflex machines; access to the report requires a later order. Two joined proceedings, one order.
Read the order and distinguish the initial measure from its subsequent review.
Outcome at the stated stage. Subsequent developments are mentioned only where identified.
Detailed analysis · Official source · § 6.7 ; dispositif pp. 10–12 / order pp. 10–12
10x Genomics v NanoString · première instance / first instance
UPC_CFI_2/2023
Provisional measures granted on EP 4 108 782. Reversed on 26 February 2024: read both decisions together, not as two independent disputes.
Read the order and distinguish the initial measure from its subsequent review.
Outcome at the stated stage. Subsequent developments are mentioned only where identified.
Detailed analysis · Official source · Dispositif A–G / Order A–G
Sankyo v Biogaran and others (Cass. com., 21-25.143, 2023)
21-25.143 ·
Notification of an SPC lapse to the representative appointed at filing is valid, payment of fees by another firm not amounting to a new appointment; the lapse, being indivisible, benefits all parties to the proceedings.
Read the decision in its procedural and technical context.
Read the detailed record for scope and limitations; topic labels are not procedural outcomes.
BMS v Sandoz and others (Gerechtshof Den Haag, 200.327.532/01, 2023)
200.327.532/01 et 200.328.173/01 · ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2023:1593
Under G 2/21 the technical effect relied on for inventive step need only be derivable from the application, without being proven or made plausible there; as the apixaban patent met that test, the court enjoined the generic companies from infringing the SPC.
Read the decision in its procedural and technical context.
Read the detailed record for scope and limitations; topic labels are not procedural outcomes.
myStromer v Revolt Zycling
UPC_CFI_177/2023
Ex parte injunction at Eurobike covering Germany, the Netherlands, France and Italy. EUR 500,000 security due within ten days; EUR 11,000 interim costs, not damages.
Read the order and distinguish the initial measure from its subsequent review.
Outcome at the stated stage. Subsequent developments are mentioned only where identified.
Detailed analysis · Official source · Dispositif I–VI / Order I–VI
Oerlikon v Bhagat
UPC_CFI_141/2023
Ex parte preservation of technical and commercial documents at ITMA granted. No security required in these circumstances. An evidential measure, distinct from a sales injunction.
Read the order and distinguish the initial measure from its subsequent review.
Outcome at the stated stage. Subsequent developments are mentioned only where identified.
Detailed analysis · Official source · §§ 4.3–4.7 ; dispositif / order
Amgen v Sanofi
Technical field: Biotechnology · Pharmaceuticals
Issues: Sufficiency / enablement · Validity
21-757 · Supreme Court of the United States · official full text
Supreme Court review · Antibodies / biotech
The Court affirmed the enablement ruling against functional claims to a genus of anti-PCSK9 antibodies. The disclosure must enable the full scope claimed; reasonable experimentation remains permissible.
Analytical focus : Claim scope and technical teaching
Scope and limitation : US enablement under § 112(a); not automatically equivalent to Article 83 EPC.
Read the judgment (US Supreme Court)
Source type: official full text (slip opinion), Supreme Court of the United States, No. 21-757, 18 May 2023. Opened and checked on 3 October 2026.
Opinion, pp. 13 to 15 and 18 to 19
Legal glossary · Related analysis · Our practice
Legal framework: 35 USC § 112(a)
Optis v Apple (EWHC (Pat), [2023] EWHC 1095 (Ch), 2023)
[2023] EWHC 1095 (Ch) ; HP-2019-000006 ·
Marcus Smith J set the worldwide FRAND licence of Optis’s portfolio for Apple at USD 5.13m a year, that is USD 25.65m for the future and USD 30.78m for 2017 to 2022, plus interest, pricing the Stack on Apple’s lump sum licences.
Read the decision in its procedural and technical context.
Read the detailed record for scope and limitations; topic labels are not procedural outcomes.
Sandoz v Bristol-Myers Squibb (EWCA, [2023] EWCA Civ 472, 2023)
[2023] EWCA Civ 472 (CA-2022-001183 et 001203) ·
Plausibility applies to a single compound claim; as the application linked no result to apixaban, its activity was not plausible and the patent was invalid, the outcome being the same under inventive step or sufficiency.
Read the decision in its procedural and technical context.
Read the detailed record for scope and limitations; topic labels are not procedural outcomes.
Intex v Ericsson (Delhi High Court, FAO(OS)(COMM) 296/2018, 2023)
FAO(OS)(COMM) 296/2018 et FAO(OS)(COMM) 297/2018 (sur CS(OS) 1045/2014, I.A. 6735/2014) ·
The Delhi High Court upheld the prima facie finding that Intex, an unwilling licensee, infringed eight Ericsson SEPs and ordered it to pay the entire royalty amount within four weeks.
Read the decision in its procedural and technical context.
Read the detailed record for scope and limitations; topic labels are not procedural outcomes.
G 2/21, post-published evidence
Technical field: Chemistry and materials · Cross-sector relevance
Issues: Inventive step · Evidence
G 2/21 · OJ EPO 2023, A85 · EPO · Enlarged Board of Appeal · official full text
Enlarged Board referral · Insecticides · cross-sector relevance
Evidence cannot be rejected solely because it post-dates filing. The relied-on technical effect must be encompassed by the technical teaching and embodied by the originally disclosed invention.
Analytical focus : Technical effect and post-published evidence
Scope and limitation : An inventive-step referral arising from an insecticide dispute, included for its cross-sector relevance. Sufficiency is a separate question.
Read the judgment (European Patent Office)
Source type: official full text, Official Journal EPO 2023, A85, decision of the Enlarged Board of Appeal of 23 March 2023. Opened and checked on 3 October 2026.
Dispositif / Order 1 and 2 ; § 77
Legal glossary · Related analysis · Our practice
Legal framework: Articles 56 et 83 CBE / EPC
InterDigital v Lenovo (EWHC (Pat), [2023] EWHC 539 (Pat), 2023)
[2023] EWHC 539 (Pat) ; HP-2019-000032 ·
Mellor J set the worldwide FRAND licence of InterDigital’s portfolio for Lenovo at USD 0.175 per unit, a lump sum of USD 138.7m for sales from 2007 to the end of 2023, taking LG 2017 as the best comparable; neither party’s offer was FRAND.
Read the decision in its procedural and technical context.
Read the detailed record for scope and limitations; topic labels are not procedural outcomes.
Philips France Commercial v Thales (Paris Court of Appeal, RG 22/16659, 2023)
RG 22/16659 ·
The court upholds the refusal to set aside the ex parte order authorising, under Article 145 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a seizure of documents at Philips France Commercial in the context of FRAND negotiations.
Read the decision in its procedural and technical context.
Read the detailed record for scope and limitations; topic labels are not procedural outcomes.
Nokia v Oleading (Rechtbank Den Haag, KG ZA 22-1045, 2023)
C/09/638658 / KG ZA 22-1045 · ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2023:172
As Nokia’s loss was purely financial and covered by security, while an injunction would have serious and irreversible consequences for the distributors, the interim relief judge refused a provisional injunction on two 4G and 5G essential patents.
Read the decision in its procedural and technical context.
Read the detailed record for scope and limitations; topic labels are not procedural outcomes.
Optis v Apple (EWCA, [2022] EWCA Civ 1411, 2022)
[2022] EWCA Civ 1411 ; CA-2021-003153 ·
The Court of Appeal upholds the FRAND injunction: an implementer that does not undertake to take a licence on court determined FRAND terms faces an injunction, but may give that undertaking at any time.
Read the decision in its procedural and technical context.
Read the detailed record for scope and limitations; topic labels are not procedural outcomes.
Novartis v Mylan (Gerechtshof Den Haag, 200.313.064/01, 2022)
200.313.064/01 · ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2022:2079
The interim injunction was refused: since the therapeutic effect of the 0.5 mg dose was not directly and unambiguously disclosed in the application as filed, and plausibility is not enough, the patent faces a serious risk of invalidity for added matter.
Read the decision in its procedural and technical context.
Read the detailed record for scope and limitations; topic labels are not procedural outcomes.
SEP holder v smartphone manufacturer (LG München I, 21 O 11522/21, 2022)
21 O 11522/21 ·
A SEP holder that complies with its FRAND obligations is not exposed to the disproportionality exception in section 139(1), third sentence, PatG, even for a complex product; the FRAND defence fails for lack of willingness.
Read the decision in its procedural and technical context.
Read the detailed record for scope and limitations; topic labels are not procedural outcomes.
Nokia v OnePlus (EWCA, [2022] EWCA Civ 947, 2022)
[2022] EWCA Civ 947 ; CA-2021-003304 ·
The English court retains jurisdiction and refuses to stay Nokia’s claim for infringement of UK SEPs in favour of OPPO’s global FRAND rate-setting claim in Chongqing, the dispute being an infringement claim in which the FRAND undertaking is a defence.
Read the decision in its procedural and technical context.
Read the detailed record for scope and limitations; topic labels are not procedural outcomes.
HEVC SEP holder v Z. group companies (OLG Düsseldorf, 2 U 25/21, 2022)
2 U 25/21 · ECLI:DE:OLGD:2022:0207.2U25.21.00
A purely preventive anti-anti-suit injunction is inadmissible for want of legitimate interest where no anti-suit injunction is sought or threatened and no main action is pending in a forum offering that remedy.
Read the decision in its procedural and technical context.
Read the detailed record for scope and limitations; topic labels are not procedural outcomes.
Steuerkanalsignalisierung II (OLG Karlsruhe, 6 U 149/20, 2022)
6 U 149/20 · ECLI:DE:OLGKARL:2022:0202.6U149.20.00
The Karlsruhe Higher Regional Court grants an injunction, recall and destruction: the FRAND defence fails for lack of willingness, the defendants having held back their objections to the calculation method for two years.
Read the decision in its procedural and technical context.
Read the detailed record for scope and limitations; topic labels are not procedural outcomes.
Ericsson v Apple (Rechtbank Den Haag, KG ZA 21-914, 2021)
C/09/618542 / KG ZA 21-914 · ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2021:13881
The judge confined jurisdiction over the non-Dutch Apple companies to anti-suit injunctions taking effect in the Netherlands and Belgium, then dismissed Ericsson’s anti-anti-suit claims for want of a concrete threat and because enforcing a covenant not to sue is not unlawful.
Read the decision in its procedural and technical context.
Read the detailed record for scope and limitations; topic labels are not procedural outcomes.
Vestel v Philips and Access Advance (Rechtbank Den Haag, HA ZA 20-1236, 2021)
C/09/604737 / HA ZA 20-1236 · ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2021:14372
Having jurisdiction over Philips, the Dutch court also has jurisdiction, on grounds of connection under Article 7(1) Rv, over Access Advance and two HEVC pool members established outside the EU in Vestel’s FRAND action.
Read the decision in its procedural and technical context.
Read the detailed record for scope and limitations; topic labels are not procedural outcomes.
Oppo v Sharp (SPC, (2020) Zui Gao Fa Zhi Min Xia Zhong No. 517, 2021)
(2020)最高法知民辖终517号 (décision attaquée : tribunal populaire intermédiaire de Shenzhen, (2020)粤03民初689号, 16 octobre 2020) ·
The Supreme People’s Court upheld the Shenzhen court’s jurisdiction to hear OPPO’s claim and to set worldwide licence terms for Sharp’s standard essential patents, without any forum agreement.
Read the decision in its procedural and technical context.
Read the detailed record for scope and limitations; topic labels are not procedural outcomes.
Vestel v Access Advance (EWCA, [2021] EWCA Civ 440, 2021)
[2021] EWCA Civ 440 ; A3/2020/0019 ·
Absent any asserted legally enforceable right to a FRAND licence, an implementer cannot obtain a free-standing declaration from the English court that a pool licence is or is not FRAND; jurisdiction over Philips and Access Advance was declined.
Read the decision in its procedural and technical context.
Read the detailed record for scope and limitations; topic labels are not procedural outcomes.
Lundbeck v Commission (CJEU, C-591/16 P, 2021)
C-591/16 P · ECLI:EU:C:2021:243
The appeal is dismissed: the generic manufacturers were potential competitors of Lundbeck despite its process patents, and the agreements delaying their entry in return for reverse payments are restrictions by object, even if they stay within the scope of the patents.
Read the decision in its procedural and technical context.
Read the detailed record for scope and limitations; topic labels are not procedural outcomes.
G 1/19 — computer-implemented simulations
Technical field: Software and AI · Cross-sector relevance
Issues: Inventive step · Validity
G 1/19 · ECLI:EP:BA:2021:G000119.20210310
Context: Simulation of pedestrian movement; referral concerning technical contribution.
Issue and holding: A simulation can produce a technical effect relevant to inventive step. Modelling a system based on technical principles is not sufficient by itself.
Practical relevance: Apply the COMVIK approach to the claimed contribution.
Framework and scope: Articles 52 and 56 EPC; no automatic patentability of simulations or software.
Official source · Sommaire 1–3 / Headnote 1–3
COMVIK — technical and non-technical features · Glossary · Our practice
Last documentary verification: 2026-10-12.
3G and 4G SEP holder v Chinese smartphone maker (LG München I, 7 O 14276/20, 2021)
7 O 14276/20 ·
The anti-anti-suit injunction is upheld; the chamber finds a threat of first infringement in particular where a global royalty action is filed in an anti-suit forum or no written undertaking is given.
Read the decision in its procedural and technical context.
Read the detailed record for scope and limitations; topic labels are not procedural outcomes.
Wurzelsequenzordnung (OLG Karlsruhe, 6 U 130/20, 2021)
6 U 130/20 · ECLI:DE:OLGKARL:2021:0212.6U130.20.00
Enforcement of the injunction is stayed against security: a counter-offer leaving the royalty to the patentee’s equitable determination (section 315(3) BGB) in principle shows sufficient willingness to take a FRAND licence.
Read the decision in its procedural and technical context.
Read the detailed record for scope and limitations; topic labels are not procedural outcomes.
Ono Pharmaceutical v INPI (CA Paris, RG 18/10540, 2021)
RG 18/10540 ·
The second SPC for nivolumab is refused: Article 3(c) bars it for Ono, which already holds a certificate for the product, and nivolumab, developed through an independent inventive step, is not protected by the upstream patent under Article 3(a).
Read the decision in its procedural and technical context.
Read the detailed record for scope and limitations; topic labels are not procedural outcomes.
Mobilstation (OLG Karlsruhe, 6 U 103/19, 2020)
6 U 103/19 · ECLI:DE:OLGKARL:2020:1209.6U103.19.00
Defendants whose conduct aimed at delaying a licence cannot rely on the FRAND defence; an explained offer that is FRAND for an average licensee suffices, and a counter-offer is due unless the offer is clearly non-FRAND.
Read the decision in its procedural and technical context.
Read the detailed record for scope and limitations; topic labels are not procedural outcomes.
LTE SEP holder v car manufacturer (LG Düsseldorf, 4c O 17/19, 2020)
4c O 17/19 · ECLI:DE:LGD:2020:1126.4C.O17.19.00
Stay and preliminary reference to the CJEU on suppliers’ priority for a licence and on refining the Huawei v ZTE steps, the chamber favouring a right of every supplier to an unrestricted licence.
Read the decision in its procedural and technical context.
Read the detailed record for scope and limitations; topic labels are not procedural outcomes.
FRAND-Einwand II (BGH, KZR 35/17, 2020)
KZR 35/17 (instances antérieures : LG Düsseldorf, 4a O 144/14, 3 novembre 2015 ; OLG Düsseldorf, I-15 U 65/15, 30 mars 2017) · ECLI:DE:BGH:2020:241120UKZR35.17.0
The BGH restored the injunction against the Haier group companies: absent a clear and continuing willingness to take a FRAND licence, the SEP holder’s action was not abusive, even if its offers were discriminatory.
Read the decision in its procedural and technical context.
Read the detailed record for scope and limitations; topic labels are not procedural outcomes.
Teva v Merck Sharp & Dohme (CA Paris, RG 18/23642, 2020)
RG 18/23642 ·
The SPC for the ezetimibe and simvastatin combination, a second certificate on the same patent, is invalid under Article 3(a) and (c), the combination not being a distinct product protected as such; insufficiency of the combination claims is rejected.
Read the decision in its procedural and technical context.
Read the detailed record for scope and limitations; topic labels are not procedural outcomes.
Conversant v Huawei (SPC, (2019) 最高法知民终732、733、734号之二, 2020)
(2019) 最高法知民终732、733、734号之二 ·
The Supreme People’s Court upheld the order prohibiting Conversant, on pain of RMB 1 million per day, from seeking provisional enforcement of the German injunction against Huawei before its final ruling on the licence rate. Neither comity nor an offer of security justified lifting the order.
Read the decision in its procedural and technical context.
Read the detailed record for scope and limitations; topic labels are not procedural outcomes.
Unwired Planet v Huawei
Technical field: Telecommunications
Issues: Global licensing · Injunctions and provisional measures · Jurisdiction
[2020] UKSC 37 · UK Supreme Court · official full text
Supreme Court appeal · Telecommunications / SEP
The Court accepted that English courts may determine global FRAND licence terms under the ETSI undertaking, with relief against infringement of a UK patent linked to acceptance of that licence.
Analytical focus : Global licence · ETSI undertaking
Scope and limitation : Contractual jurisdiction does not confer jurisdiction to determine the validity of foreign patents. No numerical rate is extracted in this record.
Read the judgment (UK Supreme Court)
Source type: official full text, [2020] UKSC 37, 26 August 2020. Opened and checked on 3 October 2026.
§§ 90 to 93
Legal glossary · Related analysis · Our practice
Legal framework: Engagement ETSI FRAND / ETSI FRAND undertaking
Lizenz in Wertschöpfungskette (LG Mannheim, 2 O 34/19, 2020)
2 O 34/19 · ECLI:DE:LGMANNH:2020:0818.2O34.19.00
A car maker that refers the SEP holder to its suppliers and bases the royalty on the price of telematics units is not willing to take a licence; an injunction is granted.
Read the decision in its procedural and technical context.
Read the detailed record for scope and limitations; topic labels are not procedural outcomes.
FTC v Qualcomm (9th Cir., No. 19-16122, 2020)
No. 19-16122 ; D.C. No. 5:17-cv-00220-LHK ·
Qualcomm’s OEM-only licensing, its refusal to license rival chipmakers and its « no license, no chips » policy do not violate the Sherman Act. Any breach of its FRAND commitments is a matter for contract or patent law.
Read the decision in its procedural and technical context.
Read the detailed record for scope and limitations; topic labels are not procedural outcomes.
Santen v Directeur général de l’INPI (CJEU, C-673/18, 2020)
C-673/18 · ECLI:EU:C:2020:531
An authorisation covering a new therapeutic application of an active ingredient already authorised for a different application cannot be the first authorisation under Article 3(d); the Court departs from paragraph 27 of Neurim.
Read the decision in its procedural and technical context.
Read the detailed record for scope and limitations; topic labels are not procedural outcomes.
Regeneron v Kymab (UKSC, [2020] UKSC 27, 2020)
[2020] UKSC 27 ·
A product claim covering a range is insufficient if the disclosure does not enable substantially all products within a relevant range to be made at the priority date, even if the invention would benefit the whole range; claim 1 of the 163 Patent is invalid.
Read the decision in its procedural and technical context.
Read the detailed record for scope and limitations; topic labels are not procedural outcomes.
Neurim Pharmaceuticals v Generics UK (EWCA, [2020] EWCA Civ 793, 2020)
[2020] EWCA Civ 793 (A3/2020/0808 et A3/2020/0809) ·
With trial four months away, damages were an adequate remedy for the patentee: the refusal of an interim injunction against the Circadin generic was upheld.
Read the decision in its procedural and technical context.
Read the detailed record for scope and limitations; topic labels are not procedural outcomes.
Sisvel v Haier (FRAND-Einwand I)
Technical field: Telecommunications
Issues: FRAND negotiations · Injunctions and provisional measures · Global licensing
KZR 36/17 · Bundesgerichtshof · Kartellsenat · full-text reproduction
Revision before the BGH · Telecommunications / SEP
The BGH required a clear willingness to conclude a FRAND licence and meaningful participation in negotiations. The proprietor’s information duties and the licensee’s conduct must be assessed in context.
Analytical focus : Negotiation conduct · willingness
Scope and limitation : The patent had expired and the injunction claim had become moot. The remaining claims must not be counted as a new injunction grant.
Read the judgment (WIPO Lex, texte du BGH / BGH judgment)
Source type: full German text reproduced by WIPO Lex, not the official publication of the Bundesgerichtshof. BGH, KZR 36/17, 5 May 2020. Opened and checked on 3 October 2026.
Leitsätze a and b; Gründe II.2 and III
Legal glossary · Related analysis · Our practice
Legal framework: Article 102 TFUE / TFEU
Official BGH publication · Official database reference checked on 13 October 2026.
Royalty Pharma Collection Trust v Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt (CJEU, C-650/17, 2020)
C-650/17 · ECLI:EU:C:2020:327
A product within a functional definition is protected under Article 3(a) if it necessarily falls under the invention and is specifically identifiable at the filing or priority date; it is not if it was developed after that date through an independent inventive step.
Read the decision in its procedural and technical context.
Read the detailed record for scope and limitations; topic labels are not procedural outcomes.
Sisvel v Xiaomi (Gerechtshof Den Haag, 200.265.385/01, 2020)
200.265.385/01 · ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2020:711
The balance of interests requires refusal of the interim injunction on Sisvel’s essential patent, even assuming the patent valid and infringed and Xiaomi’s FRAND defence bound to fail; the first instance ruling was upheld.
Read the decision in its procedural and technical context.
Read the detailed record for scope and limitations; topic labels are not procedural outcomes.
Lenovo v IPCom (Paris Court of Appeal, RG 19/21426, 2020)
RG 19/21426 ; arrêt n° 14/2020 (ordonnance déférée : TGI Paris, réf., 8 novembre 2019, RG 19/59311) ·
The Paris Court of Appeal upheld the order requiring Lenovo’s US companies to withdraw their anti-suit motion targeting IPCom’s French infringement actions, a manifestly unlawful disturbance, but set aside the general ban on new applications.
Read the decision in its procedural and technical context.
Read the detailed record for scope and limitations; topic labels are not procedural outcomes.
TCL v Philips and ETSI (Paris Judicial Court, RG 19/02085, 2020)
RG 19/02085 ·
The pre-trial judge holds that the Paris Judicial Court has jurisdiction over Philips as co-defendant with ETSI and rejects the lis pendens and related actions objections based on the English infringement action.
Read the decision in its procedural and technical context.
Read the detailed record for scope and limitations; topic labels are not procedural outcomes.
Generics (UK) v Competition and Markets Authority (CJEU, C-307/18, 2020)
C-307/18 · ECLI:EU:C:2020:52
A generic company ready to enter is a potential competitor of the holder of a disputed process patent; a settlement with transfers of value explicable only by the absence of competition is a restriction by object, and a strategy of such settlements may be abusive.
Read the decision in its procedural and technical context.
Read the detailed record for scope and limitations; topic labels are not procedural outcomes.
Philips v Asus (Gerechtshof Den Haag, 200.233.166/01, 2019)
200.233.166/01 (rechtbank : C/09/514186 / HA ZA 16-805) · ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2019:3535
The Hague Court of Appeal held EP 1 440 525 valid and infringed, granted an injunction and rejected Asus’s FRAND defence for want of any genuine willingness to take a licence.
Read the decision in its procedural and technical context.
Read the detailed record for scope and limitations; topic labels are not procedural outcomes.
Teva UK and others v Gilead Sciences (EWCA, [2019] EWCA Civ 2272, 2019)
[2019] EWCA Civ 2272 (A3 2018 2542) ·
A claim to TD « and optionally other therapeutic ingredients » does not necessarily relate to the TD and emtricitabine combination; the Truvada SPC is invalid under Article 3(a).
Read the decision in its procedural and technical context.
Read the detailed record for scope and limitations; topic labels are not procedural outcomes.
Nokia v Continental (OLG München, 6 U 5042/19, 2019)
6 U 5042/19 ·
Applying in the United States for an anti-suit injunction to block German infringement actions interferes with the patent as a property-like right; the preventive prohibition against the parent company is upheld.
Read the decision in its procedural and technical context.
Read the detailed record for scope and limitations; topic labels are not procedural outcomes.
Bayer Pharma v Richter Gedeon and Exeltis (CJEU, C-688/17, 2019)
C-688/17 · ECLI:EU:C:2019:722
Article 9(7) of Directive 2004/48 does not preclude national rules excluding compensation for harm the injured party failed to avoid by acting as could be expected of it, provided the court can weigh all objective circumstances, including any abuse by the applicant.
Read the decision in its procedural and technical context.
Read the detailed record for scope and limitations; topic labels are not procedural outcomes.
Philips v Wiko (Gerechtshof Den Haag, 200.219.487/01, 2019)
200.219.487/01 · ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2019:3613
As Wiko had not shown itself willing to take a licence before the proceedings, Philips’s action on a UMTS essential patent was not abusive; an injunction was granted and a stay pending German proceedings refused.
Read the decision in its procedural and technical context.
Read the detailed record for scope and limitations; topic labels are not procedural outcomes.
JCB v Manitou — expert assistance in a saisie-contrefaçon
Technical field: Mechanical engineering
Issues: Evidence · Evidence preservation / saisie-contrefaçon · Procedure
Pourvoi 18-15.005 · ECLI:FR:CCASS:2019:CO00325
Context: Construction machinery; patent attorneys who conducted private tests were appointed to assist the bailiff.
Issue and holding: Their earlier involvement does not bar appointment. This assistance is not a court expert examination subject to the duty of impartiality.
Practical relevance: Distinguish technical assistance from court expert evidence.
Framework and scope: Article L.615-5 French IP Code and Article 6(1) ECHR. French framework; UPC requirements remain distinct.
Official source · Moyen principal et dispositif / Main appeal and operative part
Last documentary verification: 2026-10-12.
Abraxis Bioscience v Comptroller General of Patents (CJEU, C-443/17, 2019)
C-443/17 · ECLI:EU:C:2019:238
The authorisation for a new formulation of an old active ingredient cannot be the first authorisation of the product under Article 3(d) where that ingredient has already been authorised; the Neurim exception does not extend to formulations.
Read the decision in its procedural and technical context.
Read the detailed record for scope and limitations; topic labels are not procedural outcomes.
Warner-Lambert v Generics
Technical field: Pharmaceuticals
Issues: Sufficiency / enablement · Second medical use · Validity
[2018] UKSC 56 · UK Supreme Court · official full text
Supreme Court appeal · Pregabalin · second medical use
The majority held claims 1 and 3 insufficient: the specification did not support the claimed use for neuropathic pain. The judges differed on the reasoning underlying their alternative infringement analysis.
Analytical focus : Sufficiency · second medical use
Scope and limitation : The separate infringement opinions must not be presented as one unanimously adopted test.
Read the judgment (UK Supreme Court)
Source type: official full text, [2018] UKSC 56, 14 November 2018. Opened and checked on 3 October 2026.
§ 15 ; §§ 48 to 51
Legal glossary · Related analysis · Our practice
Legal framework: UK Patents Act 1977, section 72(1)(c)
Teva UK and Others v Gilead Sciences (CJEU, C-121/17, 2018)
C-121/17 · ECLI:EU:C:2018:585
A combination of active ingredients not expressly claimed is protected under Article 3(a) if the claims relate to it necessarily and specifically: it must necessarily fall under the invention and each ingredient must be specifically identifiable, at the filing or priority date.
Read the decision in its procedural and technical context.
Read the detailed record for scope and limitations; topic labels are not procedural outcomes.
Incyte v Szellemi Tulajdon Nemzeti Hivatala (CJEU, C-492/16, 2017)
C-492/16 · ECLI:EU:C:2017:995
A first authorisation date fixed without regard to Seattle Genetics is incorrect; under Article 18 of Regulation 469/2009 the holder may obtain rectification of the certificate’s duration for as long as it has not expired.
Read the decision in its procedural and technical context.
Read the detailed record for scope and limitations; topic labels are not procedural outcomes.
Merck Sharp & Dohme v Teva Pharma (HR, 15/04934, 2017)
15/04934 · ECLI:NL:HR:2017:2807
All Swiss-type claims, subgroup claims included, are subject to the same test for direct infringement, which a carve-out alone does not generally defeat, and may be indirectly infringed. The appeal judgment was set aside and the case remitted.
Read the decision in its procedural and technical context.
Read the detailed record for scope and limitations; topic labels are not procedural outcomes.
Actavis v Eli Lilly (UKSC, [2017] UKSC 48, 2017)
[2017] UKSC 48 ·
Forms of pemetrexed other than the disodium salt directly infringe the patent as equivalents under the reformulated Improver questions; the prosecution history does not prevent that result.
Read the decision in its procedural and technical context.
Read the detailed record for scope and limitations; topic labels are not procedural outcomes.
Raltegravir (BGH, X ZB 2/17, 2017)
X ZB 2/17 · ECLI:DE:BGH:2017:110717UXZB2.17.0
Provisional permission to use the raltegravir patent under Sections 24 and 85 PatG is upheld: the licensing efforts were sufficient and the public interest urgently required continued supply for several patient groups.
Read the decision in its procedural and technical context.
Read the detailed record for scope and limitations; topic labels are not procedural outcomes.
Dutch State v Warner Lambert Company (Gerechtshof Den Haag, 200.185.962/01, 2017)
200.185.962/01 · ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2017:1935
The Court of Appeal referred three questions on Article 11 of Directive 2001/83 to the Court of Justice: the effect of a carve-out notice on the marketing authorisation and whether the authority may publish the generic’s full label; provisionally, such publication is not infringement.
Read the decision in its procedural and technical context.
Read the detailed record for scope and limitations; topic labels are not procedural outcomes.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries v Novartis (HR, 15/01813, 2017)
15/01813 · ECLI:NL:HR:2017:692
Sun’s appeal was dismissed: priority was validly claimed and, the question of principle on indirect infringement of Swiss-type claims not being in issue, a generic company knowing its product would be dispensed for osteoporosis had to prove the steps it took to prevent this.
Read the decision in its procedural and technical context.
Read the detailed record for scope and limitations; topic labels are not procedural outcomes.
Unwired Planet v Huawei (EWHC (Pat), [2017] EWHC 711 (Pat), 2017)
[2017] EWHC 711 (Pat) ; HP-2014-000005 ·
Birss J held that only a worldwide licence is FRAND between Unwired Planet and Huawei, set its rates (a 0.062% benchmark for 4G handsets, 0.052% in major markets), rejected the abuse of dominance case and held that an injunction should be granted as Huawei would not take that licence.
Read the decision in its procedural and technical context.
Read the detailed record for scope and limitations; topic labels are not procedural outcomes.
GPRS SEP holder v distributors of a handset group (OLG Düsseldorf, I-15 U 66/15, 2017)
I-15 U 66/15 · ECLI:DE:OLGD:2017:0330.I15U66.15.00
Absent a non-discriminatory FRAND offer by the patentee to willing defendants, destruction and recall are dismissed for the time being; damages are limited to a FRAND royalty.
Read the decision in its procedural and technical context.
Read the detailed record for scope and limitations; topic labels are not procedural outcomes.
Archos v Philips (Rechtbank Den Haag, HA ZA 16-206, 2017)
C/09/505587 / HA ZA 16-206 · ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2017:1025
Archos failed to show either that Philips’s offer of USD 0.75 per product for its UMTS and LTE portfolio was not FRAND or that its own counter-offer of about 7 cents was; its declaratory claims were dismissed.
Read the decision in its procedural and technical context.
Read the detailed record for scope and limitations; topic labels are not procedural outcomes.
Bristol-Myers Squibb v Isenbruck Bösl Hörschler and others (EPO, T 488/16, 2017)
T 488/16 · ECLI:EP:BA:2017:T048816.20170201
A bare assertion of activity without data did not make dasatinib’s effect plausible at filing; post-published evidence was disregarded, inventive step denied and the referral to the Enlarged Board refused.
Read the decision in its procedural and technical context.
Read the detailed record for scope and limitations; topic labels are not procedural outcomes.
Fujifilm Kyowa Kirin Biologics v AbbVie Biotechnology (EWCA, [2017] EWCA Civ 1, 2017)
[2017] EWCA Civ 1 (A3 2016 1199 et A3 2016 3772) ·
Nothing in principle bars an Arrow declaration that a product was old or obvious at a given date; its grant is discretionary, and FKB’s claims were not struck out.
Read the decision in its procedural and technical context.
Read the detailed record for scope and limitations; topic labels are not procedural outcomes.
Pemetrexed (BGH, X ZR 29/15, 2016)
X ZR 29/15 · ECLI:DE:BGH:2016:140616UXZR29.15.0
The rule excluding equivalence where only one of several disclosed options is claimed does not apply where the patent discloses a single embodiment and does not name the substituted salt; the Düsseldorf judgment is set aside and the case remitted.
Read the decision in its procedural and technical context.
Read the detailed record for scope and limitations; topic labels are not procedural outcomes.
Sisvel v Archos (JM Barcelona, 133/2016, 2016)
Medidas cautelares previas 133/2016 (Roj: AJM B 22/2016) · ECLI:ES:JMB:2016:22A
The ex parte interim measures sought on the eve of the Mobile World Congress were refused for lack of urgency after years of tolerated use and as disproportionate to an aim of obtaining a royalty.
Read the decision in its procedural and technical context.
Read the detailed record for scope and limitations; topic labels are not procedural outcomes.
Seattle Genetics v Österreichisches Patentamt (CJEU, C-471/14, 2015)
C-471/14 · ECLI:EU:C:2015:659
The date of the first marketing authorisation in the Union under Article 13(1) is determined by EU law; it is the date on which the authorisation decision was notified to its addressee.
Read the decision in its procedural and technical context.
Read the detailed record for scope and limitations; topic labels are not procedural outcomes.
Microsoft v Motorola (9th Cir., No. 14-35393, 2015)
No. 14-35393 (D.C. Nos. 2:10-cv-01823-JLR et 2:11-cv-00343-JLR) ·
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the USD 14.52m award against Motorola: its injunction actions on standard essential patents could breach the duty of good faith arising from its RAND commitments, and Microsoft’s defence costs were recoverable.
Read the decision in its procedural and technical context.
Read the detailed record for scope and limitations; topic labels are not procedural outcomes.
Huawei v ZTE
Technical field: Telecommunications
Issues: FRAND negotiations · Injunctions and provisional measures · Security
C-170/13 · ECLI:EU:C:2015:477 · CJEU · Fifth Chamber · full-text reproduction
Preliminary ruling · Telecommunications / SEP
Article 102 TFEU constrains injunction proceedings by a dominant SEP owner with a FRAND undertaking. The judgment addresses notice, a specific offer following willingness, diligent response, counter-offers and security where applicable.
Analytical focus : Negotiation framework · Article 102 TFEU
Scope and limitation : The CJEU interprets EU law; it does not itself grant the national injunction or set a FRAND rate.
Read the judgment (WIPO Lex, texte de la CJUE / CJEU judgment)
Source type: full text reproduced by WIPO Lex. Official full text: EUR-Lex, CELEX 62013CJ0170, ECLI:EU:C:2015:477, judgment of 16 July 2015, Fifth Chamber. Sources opened and checked on 3 October 2026.
§§ 60 to 71 ; dispositif / operative part
Legal glossary · Related analysis · Our practice
Legal framework: Article 102 TFUE / TFEU
Forsgren v Österreichisches Patentamt (CJEU, C-631/13, 2015)
C-631/13 · ECLI:EU:C:2015:13
Covalent binding of an active ingredient to other active ingredients does not in principle preclude an SPC; but no SPC may be granted where the substance’s effect falls outside the authorised indications, and a conjugated carrier protein is an active ingredient only if it has its own effect covered by those indications.
Read the decision in its procedural and technical context.
Read the detailed record for scope and limitations; topic labels are not procedural outcomes.
International Stem Cell Corporation v Comptroller General of Patents (CJEU, C-364/13, 2014)
C-364/13 · ECLI:EU:C:2014:2451
An unfertilised human ovum stimulated by parthenogenesis is not a human embryo within Article 6(2)(c) of Directive 98/44 if, on current science, it lacks the inherent capacity of developing into a human being, which is for the national court to determine.
Read the decision in its procedural and technical context.
Read the detailed record for scope and limitations; topic labels are not procedural outcomes.
Ericsson v D-Link (Fed. Cir., 773 F.3d 1201, 2014)
2013-1625, -1631, -1632, -1633 ; 773 F.3d 1201 ·
The royalty for a RAND-encumbered standard essential patent must reflect the value of the invention, excluding the value of the standard and of standardisation, and the jury must be instructed on the actual commitment given. The damages award was vacated and remanded.
Read the decision in its procedural and technical context.
Read the detailed record for scope and limitations; topic labels are not procedural outcomes.
ZTE v Vringo (Rechtbank Den Haag, KG ZA 14-870, 2014)
C/09/470109 / KG ZA 14-870 · ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2014:13639
A FRAND undertaking does not, absent special circumstances, bar a seizure based on an essential patent; as ZTE made no offer before the measure, a breach by Vringo was not plausible and lifting was refused.
Read the decision in its procedural and technical context.
Read the detailed record for scope and limitations; topic labels are not procedural outcomes.
Novartis v Sanofi-Aventis France and others (Cass. com., 13-10.189, 2014)
13-10.189 · ECLI:FR:CCASS:2014:CO00758
Whether the circumstances require an ex parte provisional prohibition is for the lower courts to assess; they do not where, with the SPC expiring seventeen days later, urgent inter partes proceedings remained possible and damages could compensate the harm.
Read the decision in its procedural and technical context.
Read the detailed record for scope and limitations; topic labels are not procedural outcomes.
Samsung v Apple (IP High Court, 2013 (Ne) 10043, 2014)
2013 (Ne) 10043 (première instance : tribunal de district de Tokyo, 2011 (Wa) 38969) ·
The court held Samsung’s standard essential patent valid and infringed but capped damages at the FRAND royalty of JPY 9,955,854, any excess being an abuse of right absent proof that Apple was unwilling to take a FRAND licence.
Read the decision in its procedural and technical context.
Read the detailed record for scope and limitations; topic labels are not procedural outcomes.
Samsung, UMTS standard essential patents (European Commission, AT.39939, 2014)
AT.39939 ; C(2014) 2891 final ·
The Commission makes binding for five years Samsung’s commitments not to seek EEA injunctions on its mobile standard essential patents against a licensee that accepts a negotiation of up to twelve months followed by determination of FRAND terms by a court (Patents Court or UPC) or an arbitrator.
Read the decision in its procedural and technical context.
Read the detailed record for scope and limitations; topic labels are not procedural outcomes.
Motorola, GPRS standard essential patents (European Commission, AT.39985, 2014)
AT.39985 ; C(2014) 2892 final ·
Motorola infringed Article 102 TFEU by seeking and enforcing in Germany a GPRS SEP injunction against Apple, a licensee that was not unwilling, from 4 October 2011 to 29 May 2012; no fine is imposed.
Read the decision in its procedural and technical context.
Read the detailed record for scope and limitations; topic labels are not procedural outcomes.
Merck Canada v Accord Healthcare (CJEU, C-555/13, 2014)
C-555/13 · ECLI:EU:C:2014:92
Article 13, read with recital 9, precludes the holder of a patent and an SPC from relying on the full term of the certificate where it would confer more than 15 years of exclusivity from the first MA in the Union.
Read the decision in its procedural and technical context.
Read the detailed record for scope and limitations; topic labels are not procedural outcomes.
Georgetown University v Octrooicentrum Nederland (CJEU, C-484/12, 2013)
C-484/12 · ECLI:EU:C:2013:828
Article 3(c) does not preclude the holder of an SPC for a combination of active ingredients from obtaining, on the same patent, an SPC for one of those ingredients protected as such by that patent.
Read the decision in its procedural and technical context.
Read the detailed record for scope and limitations; topic labels are not procedural outcomes.
Eli Lilly v Human Genome Sciences (CJEU, C-493/12, 2013)
C-493/12 · ECLI:EU:C:2013:835
Article 3(a) does not require a structural formula: an active ingredient covered by a functional definition may be protected if the claims, read in the light of the description, relate to it implicitly but necessarily and specifically.
Read the decision in its procedural and technical context.
Read the detailed record for scope and limitations; topic labels are not procedural outcomes.
Actavis v Sanofi (CJEU, C-443/12, 2013)
C-443/12 · ECLI:EU:C:2013:833
A proprietor who has obtained an SPC for an innovative active ingredient may not obtain, on the same patent and a later MA, a second SPC for a combination of that ingredient with one not protected as such.
Read the decision in its procedural and technical context.
Read the detailed record for scope and limitations; topic labels are not procedural outcomes.
Astrazeneca v Comptroller General of Patents (CJEU, C-617/12, 2013)
C-617/12 · ECLI:EU:C:2013:761
In the EEA context, a Swissmedic authorisation automatically recognised in Liechtenstein is the first authorisation under Article 13(1) if it predates the other authorisations for the product, regardless of the EMA’s refusal or the suspension of the Swiss authorisation.
Read the decision in its procedural and technical context.
Read the detailed record for scope and limitations; topic labels are not procedural outcomes.
Escitalopram (HR, 12/00888, 2013)
12/00888 · ECLI:NL:HR:2013:BZ4115
A known substance that no known process could produce may be protected by a product patent if the claimed process makes it available for the first time in an inventive way; the burden of proving lack of inventive step lies on the invalidity claimant. The appeal judgment was set aside and the case remitted.
Read the decision in its procedural and technical context.
Read the detailed record for scope and limitations; topic labels are not procedural outcomes.
Novartis v Union of India (Supreme Court of India, Civil Appeals 2706-2716/2013, 2013)
Civil Appeal Nos. 2706-2716 of 2013, avec Civil Appeal No. 2728 of 2013 et Civil Appeal Nos. 2717-2727 of 2013 ·
Imatinib mesylate, known from the Zimmermann patent, is not an invention, and its beta crystalline form, a new form of a known substance, shows no enhanced therapeutic efficacy under section 3(d); the refusal of the patent is upheld.
Read the decision in its procedural and technical context.
Read the detailed record for scope and limitations; topic labels are not procedural outcomes.
AstraZeneca v Commission (CJEU, C-457/10 P, 2012)
C-457/10 P · ECLI:EU:C:2012:770
Misleading representations to patent offices to obtain SPCs and the deregistration of MAs without objective justification to obstruct generics and parallel imports are abuses of a dominant position; the appeal and cross-appeals are dismissed.
Read the decision in its procedural and technical context.
Read the detailed record for scope and limitations; topic labels are not procedural outcomes.
Neurim v Comptroller-General of Patents (CJEU, C-130/11, 2012)
C-130/11 · ECLI:EU:C:2012:489
An earlier veterinary MA for the same active ingredient does not preclude an SPC for a different application covered by its own MA, if it falls within the protection of the basic patent; the first MA is assessed within the limits of that protection.
Read the decision in its procedural and technical context.
Read the detailed record for scope and limitations; topic labels are not procedural outcomes.
Merck Sharp & Dohme v Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt (CJEU, C-125/10, 2011)
C-125/10 · ECLI:EU:C:2011:812
An SPC may be granted where less than five years separate the basic patent application from the first MA; its negative term is not rounded up to zero, and the paediatric extension runs from patent expiry less that negative term.
Read the decision in its procedural and technical context.
Read the detailed record for scope and limitations; topic labels are not procedural outcomes.
Medeva v Comptroller General of Patents (CJEU, C-322/10, 2011)
C-322/10 · ECLI:EU:C:2011:773
Article 3(a) precludes an SPC for active ingredients not specified in the wording of the claims of the basic patent; Article 3(b) allows an SPC for the claimed combination even where the authorised product contains other active ingredients.
Read the decision in its procedural and technical context.
Read the detailed record for scope and limitations; topic labels are not procedural outcomes.
Human Genome Sciences v Eli Lilly (UKSC, [2011] UKSC 51, 2011)
[2011] UKSC 51 ·
The Neutrokine-α patent satisfies Article 57 EPC: its plausible membership of the TNF ligand superfamily suffices to show a use; the cross-appeal on insufficiency was dismissed and the case remitted.
Read the decision in its procedural and technical context.
Read the detailed record for scope and limitations; topic labels are not procedural outcomes.
Brüstle v Greenpeace (CJEU, C-34/10, 2011)
C-34/10 · ECLI:EU:C:2011:669
A human embryo includes any human ovum from fertilisation and any non-fertilised ovum obtained by nuclear transfer or parthenogenesis; an invention whose implementation requires the prior destruction of human embryos is excluded from patentability, including for research purposes.
Read the decision in its procedural and technical context.
Read the detailed record for scope and limitations; topic labels are not procedural outcomes.
Samsung v Apple (Rechtbank Den Haag, KG ZA 11-818, 2011)
398308 / KG ZA 11-818 ; 398332 / KG ZA 11-819 ; 400246 / KG ZA 11-936 ; 400247 / KG ZA 11-937 · ECLI:NL:RBSGR:2011:BT7610
A FRAND undertaking is not an offer the implementer can accept but obliges the patentee to negotiate on FRAND terms; as Samsung’s royalty demand departed far from that duty, the preliminary injunction against Apple was refused.
Read the decision in its procedural and technical context.
Read the detailed record for scope and limitations; topic labels are not procedural outcomes.
The Scripps Research Institute, disclosed disclaimers (EPO, G 2/10, 2011)
G 2/10 · ECLI:EP:BA:2011:G000210.20110830
A disclaimer excluding subject-matter disclosed in the application as filed infringes Article 123(2) EPC if the subject-matter remaining in the claim is not directly and unambiguously disclosed; this calls for a technical assessment of the case.
Read the decision in its procedural and technical context.
Read the detailed record for scope and limitations; topic labels are not procedural outcomes.
Monsanto Technology v Cefetra (CJEU, C-428/08, 2010)
C-428/08 · ECLI:EU:C:2010:402
Article 9 of Directive 98/44 does not protect a patented DNA sequence contained in soy meal in which it no longer performs its function; it exhaustively harmonises protection and precludes absolute national protection of the sequence, including for patents predating the directive.
Read the decision in its procedural and technical context.
Read the detailed record for scope and limitations; topic labels are not procedural outcomes.
Abbott Respiratory, dosage regime (EPO, G 2/08, 2010)
G 2/08 · ECLI:EP:BA:2010:G000208.20100219
Article 54(5) EPC does not exclude patenting a known medicament for a different treatment of the same illness, even where the dosage regime is the only novel feature; Swiss-type claims are no longer available where novelty lies only in the new therapeutic use.
Read the decision in its procedural and technical context.
Read the detailed record for scope and limitations; topic labels are not procedural outcomes.
G 1/07 — medical imaging and surgical methods
Technical field: Medical devices
Issues: Medical methods: exclusions · Validity
G 1/07 · ECLI:EP:BA:2010:G000107.20100215
Context: Magnetic resonance imaging using polarised xenon.
Issue and holding: A substantial invasive step requiring medical expertise and entailing substantial health risks can exclude the claimed method.
Practical relevance: Examine each step and the precise scope of the claim.
Framework and scope: Article 53(c) EPC. Informing a surgical decision alone does not exclude an imaging method; the ruling does not exclude devices.
Official source · Dispositif / Order 1–3
Last documentary verification: 2026-10-13.
Rambus (European Commission, COMP/38.636, 2009)
COMP/38.636 ·
The Commission makes binding for five years Rambus’s commitments: no royalties on SDR and DDR chips, a 1.5% cap on the unit price for later DRAM standards and declining caps for memory controllers.
Read the decision in its procedural and technical context.
Read the detailed record for scope and limitations; topic labels are not procedural outcomes.
Orange-Book-Standard (BGH, KZR 39/06, 2009)
KZR 39/06 ·
A defendant to an injunction claim may rely on the patentee’s abuse of dominance in refusing a non-discriminatory licence, provided it has made an unconditional offer and behaves as a licensee by rendering accounts and paying or depositing royalties.
Read the decision in its procedural and technical context.
Read the detailed record for scope and limitations; topic labels are not procedural outcomes.
Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (EPO, G 2/06, 2008)
G 2/06 · ECLI:EP:BA:2008:G000206.20081125
Rule 28(c) EPC applies to pending applications and forbids the patenting of products which, at the filing date, could be obtained only by destroying human embryos, even if that method is not claimed.
Read the decision in its procedural and technical context.
Read the detailed record for scope and limitations; topic labels are not procedural outcomes.
Johns Hopkins University, GDF-9 (EPO, T 1329/04, 2005)
T 1329/04 · ECLI:EP:BA:2005:T132904.20050628
As the application did not make it at least plausible that GDF-9 solved the stated problem, inventive step was denied; post-published evidence cannot be the sole basis for that showing.
Read the decision in its procedural and technical context.
Read the detailed record for scope and limitations; topic labels are not procedural outcomes.
The Salk Institute for Biological Studies v Karo Bio and Astra (EPO, T 609/02, 2004)
T 609/02 · ECLI:EP:BA:2004:T060902.20041027
A therapeutic use claim is insufficiently disclosed where the patent gives only a vague indication of a possible medical use for a compound yet to be identified; later evidence cannot remedy that insufficiency.
Read the decision in its procedural and technical context.
Read the detailed record for scope and limitations; topic labels are not procedural outcomes.
COMVIK — technical and non-technical features
Technical field: Telecommunications · Electronics · Software and AI
Issues: Inventive step · Validity
T 641/00 · ECLI:EP:BA:2002:T064100.20020926
Context: Mobile telephony: a SIM card with two identities. Opposition appeal.
Issue and holding: Only features contributing to technical character can support inventive step; a non-technical aim may form part of the problem’s constraints.
Practical relevance: Identify the technical contribution of the claimed combination.
Framework and scope: Article 56 EPC. G 1/19 explains its application to simulations; these are separate cases.
Official source · Sommaire 1–2 / Headnote 1–2
G 1/19 — computer-implemented simulations · Glossary · Our practice
Last documentary verification: 2026-10-12.
Priority and the “same invention” (EPO, G 2/98, 2001)
G 2/98 · ECLI:EP:BA:2001:G000298.20010531
Priority of an earlier application is acknowledged for a claim only if the skilled person can derive its subject-matter directly and unambiguously, using common general knowledge, from the previous application as a whole.
Read the decision in its procedural and technical context.
Read the detailed record for scope and limitations; topic labels are not procedural outcomes.
Eisai, second medical indication (EPO, G 5/83, 1984)
G 5/83 · ECLI:EP:BA:1984:G000583.19841205
A claim to the use of a substance for the treatment of the human or animal body by therapy cannot be granted; a patent may be granted with claims to the use of a substance for the manufacture of a medicament for a specified new and inventive therapeutic application.
Read the decision in its procedural and technical context.
Read the detailed record for scope and limitations; topic labels are not procedural outcomes.
Coverage of this selection
The index combines the original fourteen records, the firm’s published FRAND and Pharma records, selected UPC remedies decisions and two additional French decisions. Duplicates of the original records have been removed. One record may cover joined cases; several decisions may belong to the same dispute. Record counts therefore do not equal counts of disputes or applications.
The 25 practical examples are a checked subset covering amounts, evidence preservation and preliminary injunctions. Sources checked on 13 October 2026, except the NanoString appeal checked on 12 October. Each describes the result at the stated date and stage. Unmentioned subsequent history has not been checked. Other records link to the editorial database summaries and sources; inclusion does not mean that a numerical outcome has been extracted.
Coverage is uneven across countries, divisions, technologies and years. The selection identifies arguments, conditions and illustrative amounts; it cannot estimate success probabilities, rank courts or yield representative average awards. Injunction refusals and reversals are identified; the evidential subset currently consists mainly of grants and decisions maintaining them.
Suggested reading paths
- Claim interpretation: T 439/22 and G 1/24 belong to the same proceedings. NanoString applies Article 69 EPC before the UPC; G 1/24 addresses EPO patentability. Consulting the description connects the approaches without merging their jurisdictions. G 1/25 subsequently addresses adapting the description.
- Technical contribution: COMVIK and G 1/19 illuminate inventive step for computer-implemented inventions. G 1/19 applies a methodology; it does not concern the same patent.
- Technical teaching: Amgen, Warner-Lambert and G 2/21 support a comparison of disclosure and evidence issues. US § 112(a), UK sufficiency and inventive step under the EPC involve distinct legal tests.
Method and updates
Each record identifies the decision, context, legal framework and source. Issues and fields are editorial classifications. UPC records link to existing UPC Litigation Watch analyses. Procedural links are included only where supported by the source. Identified later decisions appear in related links; this is not exhaustive subsequent-history research.
UPC statistics · Articles and publications · Suggest a correction