Spring direct naar de hoofdnavigatie of de inhoud

Case law

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.

Continue reading

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.  

Continue reading

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.

Continue reading

Urgency and standing in UPC preliminary injunction proceedings: UPC_CFI_374/2025 (Local Division The Hague)

In its order in UPC_CFI_374/2025, Local Division The Hague, 29 August 2025 (Cilag/Ethicon v RiVOLUTiON), the Court dismissed an application for provisional measures primarily on lack of temporal urgency under Rule 211.4 Rules of Procedure (RoP). The order is a detailed illustration of how the UPC assesses “unreasonable delay” in preliminary injunction (PI) practice and how it links that assessment to a claimants’s preparation steps.

Continue reading