JUVE Patent
Legal news ticker in cooperation with GRUR
Legal news ticker in cooperation with GRUR
JUVE Patent and GRUR Patent bring you the latest news and developments concerning European and UPC patent law.
December 2025
Territorial scope of decisions on the infringement of European bundle patents under Article 34 UPCA
According to Art. 34 UPCA, in the case of a European patent, the decisions of the UPC cover the territory of those contracting member states for which the European patent has effect. This article examines the question of whether it is sufficient for this cross-border effect to be proven in only one country of protection that there is an imminent or actual infringement. A decision of the Local Division of Mannheim dated March 11, 2025 raises doubts about this.
(Michael Nieder and Jasper Werhahn, GRUR Patent 2025, page 542)
The Editors' Choice – UPC (LD Hamburg), August 14, 2025 – UPC CFI 387/2025, GRUR-RS 2025, 25175
The Hamburg Local Division confirms the broad international jurisdiction claimed by the UPC. It specifies the conditions for the inclusion of defendants based outside the EU and cross border injunctions. Therefore, the LD specifies the scope of application of Art. 8 (1 Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (“BR”) and the conditions under which a company can be considered an intermediary according to Art. 63 (1) 2nd sentence UPCA. It is a clear signal that the UPC is willing to grant far-reaching injunctions.
(Stephan Dorn and Leon Beismann, GRUR Patent 2025, page 558)
The Editors’ Choice – UPC CoA 228/2025, GRUR-RS 2025, 26146 – Roku International/Sun Patent Trust
The defendants had disputed the jurisdiction of the UPC with arguments under EU law and, in the alternative, requested a referral to the ECJ. They had also objected to the replacement of London by Milan as a division of the Central Division as incompatible with the UPCA and had derived from this an argument of the lawful judge at the UPC Local Division seized. The latter and the court of appeal rejected both arguments and rejected the application for a referral.
(Winfried Tilmann, GRUR Patent 2025, page 552)
Aggregate Royalty for Cellular SEPs in Recent Court Decisions
Standards organizations developing cellular communication standards typically require participants to disclose standard essential patents (SEPs) and agree to license such patents on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms. When courts are asked to adjudicate license disputes involving SEPs, they often calculate the implied aggregate royalty for all SEPs in the relevant standard associated with a potential license. We review five recently litigated FRAND cases and report the aggregate royalties for the 4G and 5G cellular standards that can be derived from these cases. We find that the aggregate royalty per mobile device in most of these decisions falls in a range from $3 to $16, with an average of $9.25. The aggregate royalty by the UK Court of Appeal in Optis/Apple is an outlier at $39.47.
(Nadia Soboleva and John Hayes, GRUR Patent 2025, page 546)
The first two and a half years of UPC Court of Appeal (CoA) jurisprudence on substantive patent law and patent validity are characterised by cautious initial guidance and selective alignment with the established practice of the European Patent Office (EPO). While the Court largely follows EPO principles, especially regarding the assessment of novelty and disclosure, it refrains from explicit references to EPO case law and maintains a reserved approach to formulating guiding principles. A notable exception is the assessment of inventive step, where the Court neither adopts the EPO’s formal problem-solution approach nor defines its own method. This strategy preserves the UPC’s judicial independence and flexibility for future divergence but also delays early legal certainty for users. For practitioners, EPO case law remains a practical reference, although the potential for deviation must always be considered.
(Tobias A. Timmerscheidt, GRUR Patent 2025, page 535)
European bundle patents at the UPC and national courts - applicable infringement law
The law that the Unified Patent Court and national courts are to apply to infringements of European patents is highly controversial. This article attempts to take stock of the discussion and to present the authors’ position on this issue. It also discusses the differences between the UPCA and German infringement law.
(Michael Nieder and Jasper Werhahn, GRUR Patent 2025, page 498)
The Editors’ Choice – UPC CoA 380/2025, GRUR-RS 2025, 21002 – expert/Viosys
The case concerns the relationship of the international law foundations of the UPCA and their intertwinement with Union law. In the context of a dispute over cost reimbursement, the Court of Appeal had the opportunity to make concise but fundamental statements, attempting to strike a balance between the UPCA’s autonomy under international law and the respect for the primacy of Union law.
(Ferdinand Weber, GRUR Patent 2025, page 521)
On the future of patent jurisdiction in Germany and Europe: parallelism instead of competition!
For the past two years, the European patent litigation landscape has been changing with the creation of the Unified Patent Court (UPC), which now operates alongside national courts. After the initial excitement, it’s time to take a step back and consider how the two systems might develop in the long run. This was the focus of the 17th Mannheim IP Forum, organized by Prof. Dr. Lea Tochtermann and the Interdisciplinary Center for Intellectual Property (IZG e.V.) at the University of Mannheim on July 11, 2025. Much of the current discussion focusses on competition between the different court systems. In the future however, a more integrated structure of the systems could emerge, offering choices such as whether to seek national, European, or unitary protection—or even a combination of them. The conference aimed to explore differences and similarities between the systems and offer a perspective on what the next years might hold.
(Daniel Skiebe, GRUR Patent 2025, page 515)
The eagerly awaited opinion of the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the EPO in case G 1/24 “Heated aerosol” (GRUR-RS 2025, 13433) is now available. The Enlarged Board of Appeal leaves open the legal basis for the interpretation of the claims. At the same time, it emphasizes that the description and drawings in the patent specification must always be used for interpretation. The Board of Appeal rejects the view that the description and drawings should only be consulted in cases of ambiguity or uncertainty regarding the claims. It gives the following succinct and accurate reasoning: The finding that a claim is clear and unambiguous is already the result of an interpretation of that claim and cannot precede it. This pointed statement by the Enlarged Board of Appeal gives reason to examine in detail why legal texts such as laws and patent claims must always be interpreted.
(Stephan Gruber, GRUR Patent 2025, page 509)
Life sciences at the UPC – highly effective right from the start!
When the UPC was launched, there was considerable speculation about how active the life sciences sector would be represented. It is now clear that decisions/orders from life sciences proceedings (also) shape the UPC – and given the outstanding economic importance of this sector, this is to be welcomed!
(Oliver Jan Jüngst and Moritz Schroeder, GRUR Patent 2025, page 494)
Rarely has there been such a major upheaval in European civil law as is currently the case in patent law. At the forefront of this legal revolution is the implementation and adoption of the Unified Patent system over the past two years, including patent litigation under a completely new set of procedural rules before the Unified Patent Court. As a further not yet implemented component of this transformation, Art. 35 UPCA provides for the establishment of a Patent Mediation and Arbitration Centre (“PMAC”). This center is expected to become fully operational in early 2026. Public consultations regarding its mediation and arbitration rules have recently taken place. In the first article of this three-part series, the authors provided an overview of arbitration’s past and present state. The second part examined the specific challenges that may arise when arbitrating patent disputes. This third part will focus on how the PMAC’s draft arbitration rules reflect these findings.
(Christoph Gramlich-Altenburg, Jonathan Hechler and David Wanner, GRUR Patent 2025, page 486)
The Editors’ Choice – UPC (LD Mannheim), 11 March 2025 – UPC CFI 162/2024, GRUR-RS 2025, 3769
The decision discussed below primarily addresses, on the one hand, the relationship between Art. 26 Brussels Ia Regulation and R. 19.7 RoP UPC, clarifying the precedence of Art. 26 Brussels Ia Regulation. On the other hand, the court examines which substantive law applies to acts of infringement depending on the date of the entry into force of the UPCA. Accordingly, the substantive law of the UPCA applies to acts committed after its entry into force or to ongoing acts extending beyond that date, whereas national law applies to earlier acts completed before that point in time. (Korbinian Schrom, GRUR Patent 2025, page 471)
Invention, creative contribution and ownership of rights in the age of AI
The Federal Court of Justice's DABUS decision (X ZB 5/22) has established a consistent and practical approach to dealing with “AI inventions” – at least before the German Patent and Trademark Office: Upon application, a natural person must be named as the inventor. Yet, the Court has been far more careful with answers to substantive questions. Particularly the concepts of “inventor” and of “minimum creative contribution” are still vague and unclear when autonomous AI systems are “inventing”. This article attempts a reassessment of these axioms in light of the DABUS scenario and with regard to the Court’s pre-DABUS doctrine.
(Tim W. Dornis, GRUR Patent 2025, page 462)
More than two years ago, the Unified Patent Court (UPC) has started its aspirational endeavour providing the first European civil court system and like any other patent court system, the UPC needs to combine the rule of law with an enhanced technical understanding of the matter in dispute. It is an unwritten law that the parties in patent litigation matters prepare and defend their patent cases with highly trained litigation attorneys and corresponding technically trained patent attorneys to take the specific circumstances and challenges of patent cases into account. Now, the founders of the UPC have opted for and acknowledged the challenge by implementing Technically Qualified Judges (“TQJ”) alongside those being legally trained (“LQJ”). The TQJ introduce their independent technical understanding of the patent in suit and accompanying technical questions and thereby may manage improving the (technical) quality of decisions before the UPC. Therefore, the TQJ are being provided judicial competence when appointed to a case before the UPC: Together with the legally trained judges, they make procedural decisions, work to clarify the matter in dispute, and — most importantly — ultimately reach a judgment. In other words: The TQJ is a long missing puzzle piece mirroring the patent attorneys contributing to the parties’ submissions. Time for an interim conclusion and overview of the TQJ before the UPC! (Jonas Smeets, Sabri Rihanir, GRUR Patent 2025, page 457)
Rarely has there been such a major upheaval in European civil law as is currently the case in pa-tent law. At the forefront of this legal revolution is the implementation and adoption of the Unified Patent system over the past two years, including patent litigation under a completely new set of procedural rules before the Unified Patent Court. As a further not yet implemented component of this transformation, Art. 35 UPCA provides for the establishment of a Patent Mediation and Arbi-tration Centre (“PMAC”). This center is expected to become fully operational in early 2026. Pub-lic consultations regarding its mediation and arbitration rules have recently taken place. In the first article of this three-part series, the authors provided an overview of the past and present state of patent arbitration. This second part examines the specific challenges that may arise when arbitrat-ing patent disputes. A third part will then focus on how the PMAC’s rules reflect these findings. (Christoph Gramlich-Altenburg, Jonathan Hechler, David Wanner, GRUR Patent 2025, page 451)
The Unified Patent Court (“UPC”) has now been running for more than two years and has since received around 950 cases, which shows the high interest in and outside of Europe. Applying the Rules of Procedure (“RoP”) and the UPC Agreement (“UPCA”), the Court of First Instance has issued a large number of procedural orders and, with remarkable speed, well-founded decisions on substantive law, so that the Court of Appeal is already fulfilling its task of ensuring consistency across all divisions of the Court. It therefore continues to be useful to provide an overview in order to facilitate access to the Court’s case law on the RoP and the UPCA.
(Klaus Haft, Sabine Agé, Giulia-Isabella Otten, Natali Goginashvili, Alix Fourmaux, GRUR Patent 2025, page 434)
UPC counterclaim for a court ruling on an appropriate FRAND licence?
The UPC has so far issued two injunctions for infringement of a standard-essential patent (SEP) in cases where the FRAND issue played a role. These are the decisions of the UPC local division Mannheim of November 22, 2024 – UPC CFI 210/2023 – Panasonic/OPPO and OROPE and the UPC local division Munich of December 18, 2024 – UPC CFI 9/2023 – Huawei/Netgear. Due to corresponding counterclaims by the defendants, the question of the possibility of a court determining the appropriate rate for a FRAND license arose only in the Panasonic/OPPO and OROPE case. The following remarks deal with this issue.
(Michael Nieder, GRUR Patent 2025, page 401)
Not only in the field of claim construction, but also in individual substantive issues of patent validity, the case law of the UPC seems to be sufficiently developed to provide an initial interim result. This applies in particular to the question of inventive step, which has been the subject of comparative law interest for some time (even before the UPC intervened). In the meantime, it is becoming apparent where the journey is heading: the Court is attempting to adopt familiar patterns of argumentation (from national courts and the European Patent Office) without, however, taking one of the sides in an abbreviated and catchphrase-like manner. In this sense, the aim should be to present the criteria of inventive step as “stand alone” (as UPC law). That this attempt is successful to a large degree already today, however, does not mean that the practitioner has to break new ground in the argumentation of the individual case. Much remains the same, or at least familiar.
(Volkmar Henke and Martin Drews, GRUR Patent 2025, page 378)
UPC Munich local division opts for the task-solving approach but fails to apply it consistently
The local division expresses, on the one hand, support for adopting the EPO's practice, in particular the problem-solution approach (PSA). On the other hand, however, it fails to apply its own stated position, instead conflating elements of the PSA with the German examination approach. The local division fails to recognize that the EPO's practice is based on a fundamentally different legal test, one that is incompatible with ist own reasoning and at times leads to different outcomes in the assessment of obviousness. These differences are therefore addressed here, particularly with respect to the relevance of unclaimed technical effects associated with the patent-in-suit's teaching. Against this background, the decision appears primarily as a political statement rather than the result of a doctrinally grounded analysis and evaluation of the respective legal tests.
(Rainer Engels and Markus Ackermann, GRUR Patent 2025, page 406)
With regard to the (new) proposals of the EU regulations concerning supplementary protection certificates, a compromise suggestion is proposed which, while retaining the competence of the EUIPO, introduces a clear separation of work between the UPC and the EUIPO. Furthermore, the opposition should be “post grant”.
(Aloys Hüttermann, GRUR Patent 2025, page 397)
We use cookies on our website. Some of them are essential, while others help us to improve this website and your experience.If you are under 16 and wish to give consent to optional services, you must ask your legal guardians for permission.We use cookies and other technologies on our website. Some of them are essential, while others help us to improve this website and your experience.Personal data may be processed (e.g. IP addresses), for example for personalized ads and content or ad and content measurement.You can find more information about the use of your data in our privacy policy.You can revoke or adjust your selection at any time under Settings.
If you are under 16 and wish to give consent to optional services, you must ask your legal guardians for permission.We use cookies and other technologies on our website. Some of them are essential, while others help us to improve this website and your experience.Personal data may be processed (e.g. IP addresses), for example for personalized ads and content or ad and content measurement.You can find more information about the use of your data in our privacy policy.Here you will find an overview of all cookies used. You can give your consent to whole categories or display further information and select certain cookies.
