Case Law Clarity

9 July 2026

UPC jurisdiction over UK designations and conditional infringement relief in Fujifilm v Kodak

In the case of Kodak vs. Fujifilm concerning EP 3 511 174 on 2 June 2026 before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent, the Court of Appeal addressed the UPC’s jurisdiction over the UK designation of a European patent. The decision is important because it applies the CJEU’s reasoning in BSH v Electrolux to a non-UPC and non-EU designation, while separating jurisdiction for infringement from jurisdiction for revocation.

2 July 2026

Claim interpretation and the inescapable trap in T 0837/24

In T 0837/24 (8 December 2025), the Board considered how far a technically meaningful interpretation of a claim must be taken into account when assessing added subject-matter and extension of protection. The decision is notable for its treatment of claim construction after G 1/24, and for its finding that an inconsistent first-instance decision may amount to “exceptional circumstances” under Article 13(2) RPBA.

25 June 2026

Appeal against grant to restore pendency before the EPO Board of Appeal

In T 0700/25, the Board considered whether an appeal by the patent proprietor against a decision to grant could be used to restore the pending status of a European patent application in order to file a divisional application. The decision is relevant for applicants who discover, after grant, that a divisional application should have been filed earlier, or who seek to rely on the suspensive effect of appeal proceedings.

19 June 2026

Improved technical effects and post-published evidence in T 0655/24

In T 0655/24, Technical Board of Appeal 3.3.04 of 20 January 2026 considered when post-published evidence may be used to support an improved technical effect for inventive step. The decision is relevant because the Board expressly addressed the application of G 2/21 where the application as filed discloses a technical effect, but the proprietor relies on a later-demonstrated improvement of that effect.

11 June 2026

T 873/24 and the reach of G 1/24 claim interpretation in added-matter analysis (Board of Appeal 3.3.05)

In T 873/24 (Board of Appeal 3.3.05, oral proceedings 3 February 2026), the Board indicated that it would refer questions to the Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA) on whether (and how) the Enlarged Board’s claim-interpretation guidance in G 1/24 extends to the assessment of added subject-matter under Article 123(2) EPC (and, by implication, Article 76(1) EPC). The matter is procedurally significant because disputes about “what the claim means” frequently sit at the heart of added-matter objections.

5 June 2026

Düsseldorf Local Division adopts The Hague’s four-step test for infringement by equivalence and applies a structured “feature-by-feature function” analysis

In its decision in Wonderland v Cybex (UPC_CFI_807/2024 and UPC_CFI_334/2025, Local Division Düsseldorf, 27 May 2026), the Düsseldorf panel addressed — in detail — the assessment of patent infringement by equivalent means under Art. 69 EPC and the Protocol.

29 May 2026

Penalty payments for non-compliance with UPC cease-and-desist orders: control of third-party platforms and limits of disclaimers (Hamburg Local Division)

In UPC_CFI_553/2025 (Hamburg Local Division, Court of First Instance, 20 May 2026), the Court addressed when penalty payments may be imposed for alleged non-compliance with a UPC cease-and-desist order. The decision is practically relevant for defendants seeking to “switch off” online marketing after an injunction, especially where content is disseminated via third-party platforms.

21 May 2026

T 1719/21: Non-reproducible but commercially available product as closest prior art in view of G 1/23

In T 1719/21 (Technical Board of Appeal 3.3.03, 16 October 2025), the Board addressed whether a non-reproducible but commercially available product could be used as closest prior art in the problem–solution approach for the assessment of inventive step. The decision is relevant because it applies the Enlarged Board’s guidance in G 1/23 to the selection of a realistic starting point for inventive step analysis.

8 May 2026

Brussels Local Division on targeted evidence production

The Brussels Local Division (LD) provided noteworthy guidance on how the Unified Patent Court (UPC) approaches applications to produce evidence under Rule 190 of the Rules of Procedure (RoP). The order was issued in the infringement action UPC_CFI_1357/2025 and related revocation proceedings UPC_CFI_629/2026.

6 May 2026

UPC Court of Appeal on “same parties” under Article 33(4) UPCA, late claim amendments, and an inventive-step framework: Meril v Edwards (EP 3 646 825)

In its decision of 25 November 2025 concerning EP 3 646 825, the Unified Patent Court (UPC) Court of Appeal addressed procedural coordination between infringement and revocation tracks, the admissibility of sequential amendment requests, and core principles for claim construction and inventive step.