Law360, London: The Unified Patent Court (UPC) has now doubled down on its authority to hear claims involving UK patents, a move that is likely to make the court an even more desirable forum for global infringement actions.

Law360, London: The Unified Patent Court (UPC) has now doubled down on its authority to hear claims involving UK patents, a move that is likely to make the court an even more desirable forum for global infringement actions.

EU Law analysis: Preliminary measures, including injunctions and seizure of goods, covering all of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) participating Member States are a powerful tool for patentees. As a counterbalance, potential infringers are permitted to file protective letters, which, while not eliminating the risk of a preliminary injunction, have the potential to prevent a preliminary injunction being issued ex parte. Stephanie Wroe, associate and Patent Attorney at D Young & Co, explores some of the trends emerging from the case law.

The Unified Patent Court (UPC) has published its first annual report, detailing its activities and achievements since commencing operations on 1 June 2023. The UPC has reported a successful handling of an increasing caseload, contributing to the development of a consistent body of patent law across member states. The Court has emphasised its commitment to transparency and public engagement, while outlining plans to enhance its procedures, digital case management, and overall accessibility for users. This report marks a significant milestone in the UPC's establishment as a key institution within the European patent litigation landscape.

Law360, London: The Unified Patent Court (UPC) has doubled down on asserting its jurisdiction over claims involving UK patents, citing a recent ruling that courts in the EU can assess the validity and infringement of patents from outside the EU.

Law360, London: The Unified Patent Court (UPC) has ruled that infringement in just one of the countries that have signed up to it is enough to justify an injunction covering all of them, in a case over a device used in plastic surgery to create a three-dimensional (3D) image of the face or other body parts.

MLex: The Unified Patent Court (UPC) has clarified that prior art must address the same problem as an invention to challenge inventive step, upholding Vilpe’s patent for a roof ventilation pipe, and offering further guidance on how its holistic test should be applied in practice to assess obviousness.

Law360, London: The Unified Patent Court (UPC) said that it cannot refer questions of its framework or procedures to the EU's top court, ruling that such issues fall outside the EU's jurisdiction.

Law360, London: The Unified Patent Court (UPC) said 20 August 2025 that it cannot refer questions of its framework or procedures to the EU's top court, ruling that such issues fall outside the EU's jurisdiction.

CASE HUB See further, timeline. Case facts Outline European Commission merger investigation into the proposed creation of a joint venture between UPM-Kymmene Corporation and Sappi Limited (M.12270). The transaction involves horizontal overlaps in the relation to the production and supply of communication paper and speciality paper. Latest developments On 26 August 2026, the Commission issued its statement of objections. The Commission’s preliminary view is that, through the proposed transaction, the joint venture would acquire market power allowing it to increase prices and reduce quality to the detriment of customers for coated mechanical paper, a type of magazine paper, and coated wood-free paper, and that the benefits arising from integrating the relevant activities would be insufficient to offset the potential harm. Parties • UPM-Kymmene Corporation (UPM): UPM is headquartered in Finland. It is a global material solutions company that develops, produces and markets, among others, paper products, pulp, electricity, label stock and sawn timber, as well as biochemicals, biomass and

CASE HUB (appeal lodged by UPS in Case T- 194/13 United Parcel Service v Commission) ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 30 January 2013; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline European Commission merger investigation into the planned acquisition by UPS of TNT Express (Case M.6570). The Commission prohibited the merger on 30/01/2013. Latest developments The European Commission has prohibited the transaction on 30 January 2013. Commitments were offered by UPS, but these didn't satisfy the Commission's concerns. UPS offered to divest TNT's operations in the 15 EU countries where there are only three current competitors. UPS also offered to divest TNT's operations in Spain and Portugal. Any purchaser of the divested units that is not an integrator would be offered access to the UPS air network for five years. However, to offer an intra-EU delivery service from these 17 countries, a purchaser would have needed a delivery network or partners in the other ten countries—this seriously limited the number of potential

The domain name is [identical OR confusingly similar] to a word mark for which Complainant holds valid national or regional registration(s) and which is in current use (URS 1.2.6.1). Evidence of the Complainant’s trade mark registrations are attached. They are for the word mark [insert] (Mark) [which is[ identical] OR [if not identical then insert a description of how the domain and the Mark are similar visually aurally and conceptually, and discuss how confusion is likely to arise].] [ The Mark was also registered with the Trademark Clearinghouse [insert details and include in attachment].] For at least [insert number] years, the Complainant has used the Mark extensively in print media, on television, and on the internet. The Complainant’s advertising spend was £[insert] in [year][ [insert further spending