Spring direct naar de hoofdnavigatie of de inhoud

Case Law Clarity

Home / News / Case Law Clarity

T 0425/24: Mental acts, “overriding requirements”, and a fallback to inventive step in robot-cycle optimisation (Board 3.2.07)

In T 0425/24 (Technical Board of Appeal 3.2.07, 17 November 2025) the Board confirmed the refusal of ABB Schweiz AG’s application for a method of optimising a robot work cycle. The decision is a reminder that, where claimed steps can be performed purely mentally, the applicant cannot rely on the description to “read in” a technical implementation, and that adding a generic computer-implementation feature may merely shift the debate to inventive step without improving the outcome.

Continue reading

UPC anti-anti-suit injunctions as interim measures: Munich Local Division in Huawei v Netgear (UPC_CFI_791/2024)

In its Order of 11 December 2024 in UPC_CFI_791/2024 (Munich Local Division), the Unified Patent Court (UPC) granted an ex parte anti-anti-suit/anti-enforcement injunction (AASI/AAEI) to prevent steps in US proceedings that were said to obstruct UPC patent enforcement. The decision is noteworthy for its articulation of the UPC’s jurisdictional basis and the procedural framework for such relief as interim measures.

Continue reading

R 0016/23: the Enlarged Board confirms the mandatory nature of oral proceedings upon request under Article 116(1) EPC 

In R 0016/23 (Enlarged Board of Appeal, 21 November 2025), the Enlarged Board set aside a Legal Board of Appeal decision which had dismissed an appeal without holding requested oral proceedings. The decision is a clear statement that efficiency and “timely legal certainty” cannot, in themselves, justify restricting the scope of Article 116(1) EPC when a party has made a valid request.

Continue reading

Medical-device infringement and “standard use”: LD Munich on lege artis use and conditional revocation counterclaims (UPC_CFI_628/2024) 

In its decision on the merits in UPC_CFI_628/2024 (with the related revocation counterclaim UPC_CFI_125/2025), the Munich Local Division of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) addressed two practically relevant issues:

  1. how to assess infringement of a medical device claim where the patentee relies on a possible, unintended, use of the accused medical device, and
  2. whether a revocation counterclaim may be made conditional on the outcome of the infringement finding. The decision was issued on 13 January 2026.
Continue reading

Newsletters

Archive