European Union: Patent

The Local Division Brussels of the Unified Patent Court issued a procedural order addressing the admissibility of further written pleadings in a patent infringement dispute between Establishment Labs S.A. and GC Aesthetics entities concerning European Patent EP 3 107 487. The order examines procedural rules governing additional submissions in both the main infringement action and the related counterclaim for revocation, with considerations of accessory liability under multiple national jurisdictions.

A Munich Local Division ruling addresses whether a counterclaim for patent revocation that transitions from unconditional to conditional status—dependent on a finding of infringement—remains subject to unconditional limitation requirements under Rule 263.3 of the Rules of Procedure. The case involves Papst Licensing's infringement action against Roborock entities concerning EP 3 030 943, with implications for procedural strategy in UPC patent disputes.

The UPC Court of Appeal has issued its first comprehensive guidance on handling infringement claims based on non-UPC patent designations, establishing a structured framework for exercising extra-territorial jurisdiction. This landmark decision clarifies when the UPC will accept jurisdiction over foreign patent designations and under what conditions it will rule on infringement, with significant implications for patent holders and multinational defendants operating across European borders.

The Local Division Munich reviews a confidentiality order in patent infringement proceedings between CA, Inc. and Deutsche Telekom entities concerning EP 1 955 151. The case involves complex procedural questions under the Unified Patent Court Rules of Procedure regarding confidentiality protections and access to sensitive information in parallel infringement and revocation actions.

A cost determination proceeding at the Unified Patent Court's Local Division Munich involves Niche Biomedical, Inc. (ANEUVO) as applicant and ONWARD Medical N.V. as respondent, concerning European Patent EP 3 421 081 B1. The case addresses the application of Rules 152.2 and 156.1 of the Rules of Procedure, Article 76 of the UPC Agreement, and the Administrative Committee's decision on recoverable costs ceilings.

The Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court addressed critical jurisdictional questions regarding the interplay between UPC proceedings for provisional measures and parallel national French actions involving supplementary protection certificates. The court examined whether it was "first seized" under Brussels I recast regulations and whether related national proceedings warranted staying the UPC case or declining jurisdiction.

The Unified Patent Court's Court of Appeal issued a procedural order addressing the admissibility of additional auxiliary requests in parallel appeals brought by Advanced Brain Monitoring against Philips entities. The decision interprets Article 73(4) UPCA and Rule 222.2 RoP in the context of patent revocation proceedings involving EP 2 437 696 B2.

Did you know Cyprus lets you pay an effective tax rate of just 3% on qualifying intellectual property income? Kyriakos Tramountanellis FCA explains how the Cyprus IP Box regime works: 80% of qualifying profits from patents and copyrighted software are deducted, so you are taxed on only 20% — one of the most competitive, fully OECD-compliant IP regimes in Europe. If you develop software, own patents, or earn royalty income, this could transform your tax position.

Enovix is an advanced battery technology company focused on developing high-performance lithium-ion batteries for next-generation devices, including smartphones, wearables, IoT, laptops, and electric vehicles such as drones. Headquartered in Silicon Valley, California, Enovix is recognized for its proprietary innovative silicon-anode battery architecture designed to improve energy density, charging performance, and battery safety.