Patent litigation news
LE LAB · NEWS
Patent litigation
in motion.
Institutional developments, the firm’s signed analyses and external analysis, dated and sourced, on patent disputes in France, before the UPC and internationally.
In focus
PMAC: future FRAND guidelines
Published: 25 September 2026 · Comments invited by 26 October 2026.
The UPC’s Patent Mediation and Arbitration Centre is consulting on a discussion paper (the “PMAC FRAND Guidelines Outline”) preparing a non-binding framework for resolving FRAND disputes. These are not adopted guidelines: a further public consultation on the draft guidelines is announced.
Our analyses
Analyses signed by Matthieu Dhenne and published on the Kluwer Patent Blog. Each notice gives the original title and links to the text as published by the publisher. Where a French adaptation exists, it appears on the firm’s blog.
Divisional applications and double patenting
Original notice: Divisional Applications and Double Patenting: When Portfolio Optionality Becomes Litigation Strategy, Kluwer Patent Blog, 13 October 2026. When portfolio choices before the EPO become litigation strategy. Practice: patents.
Comparable licences and confidentiality before the UPC
Original notice: Person, Bar, Perimeter: What Comparable Licences Cost Before the UPC, Kluwer Patent Blog, 6 October 2026. Access to licence agreements, restrictions on readers and the scope of confidentiality. Practice: FRAND and SEPs.
Munich’s FRAND guidelines
Original notice: Munich’s FRAND Guidelines: A Compass Drawn Too Finely, Kluwer Patent Blog, 1 October 2026. A critical reading of the Munich Regional Court’s guidelines. French adaptation: une boussole tracée trop fin (blog, 8 October 2026).
External analysis
France and France-related matters
A new judge at the Paris central division
Élise Mellier is appointed legally qualified judge at the Central Division Paris with effect from 1 October 2026, following the Administrative Committee decision of 3 July 2026, she also heads the office of the President of the Court of First Instance. Oath taken in Paris on 5 October 2026.
Pre-grant non-infringement actions: the UPC Court of Appeal opens the door
In a dispute between two French companies, Sidel and OMNIA, the UPC Court of Appeal held that whether a non-infringement action can be brought before grant is a question of admissibility, not jurisdiction. The decision, on appeal from an order of the Paris division, could lead to more actions targeting European patents that are still pending.
The Paris court in figures
Christina Schulze comments on the statistics published by the Paris court for 2025: fewer new patent cases, as the UPC gains ground. The figures are the court’s. The analysis is the author’s.
Europe and international
Empagliflozin: post-published clinical data that do not save the patent
The EPO Board of Appeal (T 0251/25) revoked Boehringer Ingelheim’s European patent EP 2981255 on a cardioprotective use of empagliflozin for insufficient disclosure. The claimed therapeutic effect had to be made credible by the application as filed, and neither later outcome data nor the marketing authorisation could make up for that.
Life sciences litigation: the view from UPC and Swiss judges
A report on LSPN Europe (Basel, 22 and 23 September 2026). Judges recommend concise submissions and play down the weight of expert evidence. Speakers address the coordination of parallel EPO and UPC proceedings, the timing of biosimilar litigation and the forthcoming EU pharmaceutical package.
Monthly statistics of the Court: September 2026 figures
The Court publishes its activity statistics every month. The September figures are available. Our UPC statistics read them by division and type of action.
G 2/21 applied in the Czech Republic: apixaban and sacubitril-valsartan
Petr Kusy examines how the Czech Industrial Property Office (CZ IPO) applies the Enlarged Board’s plausibility decision. To be read alongside our analysis of the French court and apixaban.
UK: what is an active ingredient?
Brian Cordery and Steven Willis revisit the active-ingredient concept for supplementary protection certificates and the questions before the UK courts.
T 657/24: narrowing definitions after G 1/24 and G 1/25
Adam Lacy and Stephan Wickles analyse a Board of Appeal decision on claim interpretation in the light of the Enlarged Board’s two recent decisions.
United States
Checking validity before suing: Epic Tech v Pen-Tech
Faced with several warning signs of invalidity, a patentee and its counsel could not rely on the presumption of validity alone. The Federal Circuit vacated the denial of sanctions and remanded, without ruling on whether sanctions were warranted. The reasoning echoes, in French law, the risk of an abusive action.
Teva v Lilly: method or molecule?
The Federal Circuit declined to rehear Teva v Lilly en banc, leaving in place the $177 million award to Teva over the migraine drug Emgality. Dissenting, Judge Dyk considers the panel’s enablement analysis for method claims inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s decision in Amgen v Sanofi.
Wyeth v AstraZeneca: the trap of functional definitions
The Federal Circuit held that Wyeth’s patents on treating non-small cell lung cancer were not enabled. By defining “unit dosage” through the desired therapeutic effect, the patentee had to enable that functional limitation, which the specification did not do.
Sources to follow
Editorial selection checked on 15 October 2026. Signed analyses link to the original text as published by the publisher. External analysis reflects its authors’ views. Each link leads to the full text and its sources.