Case law

16 April 2026

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.

9 April 2026

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.

2 April 2026

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:

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

26 March 2026

Choosing a suitable starting point for inventive step and remittal for an incomplete search: T 0610/24 (Board 3.5.01)

In T 0610/24, the Board set aside a refusal for lack of inventive step and remitted the case for further prosecution, including a further search. The decision is notable for its treatment of the “closest prior art” in the problem–solution approach and for clarifying when an incomplete prior art search can justify remittal under Article 11 RPBA 2020.

19 March 2026

Intermediate generalisation in EPO appeal decision T 0824/23 (Board 3.2.03, 14 July 2025)

The EPO Board of Appeal’s decision T 0824/23 addresses the application of intermediate generalisation under the European Patent Convention (EPC). The case clarifies the conditions under which a feature extracted from a specific embodiment of the original disclosure may be introduced into a claim without contravening Article 123(2) EPC. This decision is particularly relevant for practitioners concerned with claim amendments during opposition or appeal proceedings.

12 March 2026

Referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal regarding the applicability of G 1/24 claim interpretation to added-matter analysis (T 873/24)

In T 873/24 (Board of Appeal 3.3.05, oral proceedings 3 February 2026), the Board announced that it will 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 Article 76(1) EPC.

5 March 2026

Interpreting claim terms “holistically” after G 1/24: description-based definition applied in T 0439/22 (Board 3.2.01)

In T 0439/22 (Technical Board of Appeal 3.2.01, 11 December 2025) the Board applied the Enlarged Board’s guidance in G 1/24 on claim interpretation. The decision is a practical illustration of how an explicit definition in the description can determine the meaning of a seemingly straightforward term used in the claims. As this case shows, this can have decisive consequences for novelty and for late attempts to “repair” the description on appeal.

26 February 2026

Omission of drawings from the granted patent: limits of “deemed approval” and appeal as a remedy (T 0550/25)

In T 0550/25 (Technical Board of Appeal, 10 February 2026), the Board addressed a recurring procedural mishap: drawing sheets are missing from the text annexed to a Rule 71(3) EPC communication and the patent is granted without them. The decision is practically significant because it confirms that, in such circumstances, the applicant’s grant fee payment and translations do not necessarily amount to “deemed approval” of an unintended text, and an appeal against the grant decision can restore the correct application documents.

19 February 2026

UPC Court of Appeal on territorial scope, late claim amendments and proportionality of injunctions in a life-sciences dispute

In its decision of 25 November 2025 in Edwards Lifesciences vs. Meril (APL_2205/2025), the UPC Court of Appeal addressed procedural discipline in framing remedies (especially territorial scope) and refined how proportionality may shape injunctive relief in a medical-device case. The decision forms part of a combined judgment in the wider Meril v Edwards / Edwards v Meril appeals package.

12 February 2026

Camera-based “display visibility” as a technical security measure in remote gaming: T 2030/22 (Board 3.4.03)

In T 2030/22 (Board of Appeal 3.4.03, 27 November 2025) the Board overturned a refusal for lack of inventive step and addressed, in the same context, an examining division’s concerns that a key feature had no technical effect or was insufficiently disclosed. The decision is of practical interest where image-based recognition is used to control access to a physical device operated remotely.