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.
July 2026
Life Science Corner - The suspension of enforcement proceedings in German and UPC proceedings – Part 1
The legal framework governing UPC and German infringement proceedings is clear: a first-instance injunction (for example) may be enforced under the applicable conditions. However, both forums and their respective rules of procedure provide for a preliminary blocking of the enforcement. While this option is important from the perspective of the rule of law, it is only relevant in specific cases – in which exactly? An insight into German and UPC procedures in two parts.
(Oliver Jan Jüngst and Moritz Schroeder, GRUR Patent 2026, page 318)
A U. S. View on the UPC: Necessity and Irreparable Harm
In both the UPC and U.S. courts, patent owners can request that the court enjoin an accused infringer from continuing the allegedly infringing activities while regular patent infringement proceedings are ongoing – a “provisional injunction” in UPC terminology, a “preliminary injunction” in the U.S. In assessing such requests, courts in both jurisdictions ask what the reason for the urgency is – why should the patent owner not wait for the orderly completion of the main proceedings? This question is reflected in key elements for issuing provisional injunctions: “Necessity” in the UPC and “irreparable harm” in the U.S. The following compares the characteristics of, and recurring facts used in assessing, these elements in the two jurisdictions.
(Georg Reitboeck, GRUR Patent 2026, page 351)
Recognition of qualifications from third countries - The Achilles’ heel of the UPC’s long-arm jurisdiction?
An order of the UPC‘s Local Division Mannheim of 30 January 2026 could significantly dampen the enthusiasm surrounding long-arm jurisdiction in European patent litigation if its para. 47 were to be understood as meaning that the imposition of a penalty payment by the UPC for a violation occurring in a third country is contingent upon that country's recognition of the underlying UPC order. This would be particularly detrimental in the case of AASIs and AILIs; if disregarded, they would remain without consequences for the opposing party, since the third country would under no circumstances recognize the AASI or AILI. The following analysis examines this question in the context of the UPCA provisions governing the enforcement of decisions and orders of the Unified Patent Court.
(Michael Nieder, GRUR Patent 2026, page 331)
Liability under patent law – and a critical analysis of the Belkin v Philips ruling by the UPC appeals court
With Belkin/Philips, the UPC Court of Appeal, for the first time, has outlined the principles of liability of corporate directors and officers under the Unitary Patent system. This article attempts a systematic analysis, demonstrating in particular that the shielding of directors and officers against liability for patent infringement as endorsed by the Court lacks a normative foundation in the UPCA. Furthermore, it can be shown that Belkin/Philips has created a gap in the framework for patent liability. Indeed, the restriction of officer liability to cases of willful conduct and positive knowledge may create a risk of circumvention.
(Tim W. Dornis, GRUR Patent 2026, page 335)
In its “FRAND Objection III” decision, the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) has further refined its case law on the antitrust compulsory licence objection. The ruling is consistent with prior decisions. Still, the question arises whether the standards adopted are conducive to the development of the FRAND procedure. This article demonstrates that the broad discretion afforded to the SEP holder in making the initial offer, coupled with the unresolved basis for calculating an adequate security, risks undermining the behavioural-economic steering effect of the FRAND procedure. Consequently, a clear position on these issues would be desirable.
(Matthias Rothkopf and Samuel Walsh, GRUR Patent 2026, page 291)
Non-reproducible products as prior art: Decision G1/23 and its application by the EPO’s Boards of Appeal
This article analyses how the Boards of Appeal of the EPO apply the landmark decision G 1/23 in practice, with a particular focus on decisions T 1719/21 and T 1044/23. Both Boards have established a key distinction in this regard: the question of what needs to be modified in a non-reproducible prior art product is part of the inventive thinking required to solve the problem, but is not a consideration when selecting the starting point in the problem-solution approach. Furthermore, the Boards clearly distinguish non-reproducible commercial products from speculative disclosures and make it clear that G 1/23 only introduces tangible, physical products as relevant prior art – not hypothetical disclosures.
(Jan van Dieck and Andreas Obermeier, GRUR Patent 2026, page 301)
On infringers, instigators, accomplices and intermediaries – regarding the decision of the UPC appeals court in Belkin v Philips
In its decision of October 3, 2025, in the case of Belkin v. Philips, the UPC Court of Appeal provided initial guidance on who may be considered an “infringer” within the meaning of Article 63 in conjunction with Article 25 UPCA, and thus, in particular, who is liable as an instigator, accomplice, or assistant, and under what require ments the legal representatives of legal entities are liable under patent law. The decision is of considerable significance given the vague wording of the relevant provisions. The following discussion addresses this issue.
(Michael Nieder, GRUR Patent 2026, page 295)
Confidentiality under Rule 26a UPC RoP when submitting comparative licence agreements in SEP proceedings
The disclosure of comparable licence agreements in SEP proceedings raises complex issues of confidentiality before the UPC. In two decisions dated January 26, 2026, the Court of Appeal of the UPC further clarified the framework for confidentiality orders under Rule 262A RoP, in particular with regard to confidentiality clubs, the involvement of party representatives and employees, and the protection of legitimate third-party interests. This article analyses the key considerations underlying that case law, offers a critical assessment of the approach adopted by the Court of Appeal, and develops practical implications for the future handling of comparable licence agreements in SEP proceedings.
(Cordula Schumacher and Mennan Eker, GRUR Patent 2026, page 285)
UPC Digest, Issue no. 7: The content of disclosure
The disclosure of documents is decisive in many cases for the validity of patents. At this critical juncture of substantive law too, the UPC has by now established sufficient legal certainty at the appellate level and given it practical substance at the first-instance level. In outcome, the UPC is largely aligned with the European Patent Office; however, the focus going forward is on the skilled person — both on the legal act of determining who that person is and on their (actual) knowledge. As little as one should expect major legal battles to be fought here, so much does the dispute open up in individual cases: the criteria have been worked out, and now they must be applied.
(Volkmar Henke and Martin Drews, GRUR Patent 2026, page 279)
This year in June, the Unified Patent Court (“UPC”) celebrated its third anniversary. Over the past three years, the Court has successfully established itself by issuing nearly 2,000 published decisions and orders, marking an important step in the European integration process in the field of patent litigation. Patent law is increasingly shaped by the extensive body of case law from the Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeal on important procedural and substantive legal issues. At the same time, it has become increasingly difficult to remain fully informed. Our quarterly overview is meant to assist with this task.
(Klaus Haft, Sabine Agé, Giulia-Isabella Otten, Natali Goginashvili and Tim Robrechts, GRUR Patent 2026, page 255)
Clarification of the principles governing FRAND defences
This article analyses a recent decision concerning the FRAND defence. The 7th Civil Chamber of the Munich Regional Court I dismissed said defence, primarily on the grounds that the security provided by the defendant fell short of the requirements and that the defendant would also have been obliged to make a partial payment.
(Oliver Bäcker and Marc Beringer, GRUR Patent 2026, page 235)
European courts as “worldwide super infringement courts”?
The decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union in case C-339/22 (BSH Hausgeräte GmbH/Electrolux AB) gives rise to the broader question of whether and to what extent the jurisdiction of national courts in the field of patent law extends to companies established abroad. The essay examines whether the ECJ ruling expands the international jurisdiction of national courts to such an extent that they effectively function as “worldwide super infringement courts”. The actual implications are illustrated using a recent case as an example. Subsequently, the question of which law is applicable is addressed. Finally, a procedure for dealing with validity proceedings is proposed.
(Katalin Tözsér, Florian Schweyer and Oliver Schön, GRUR Patent 2026, page 220)
UPC Court of Appeal Case Law Review, Issue no. 6: A Unified Approach to Reading the Patent
This paper analyses the emerging case law of the Court of Appeal (CoA) of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) on the closely related topics of claim interpretation, sufficiency of disclosure and added matter, and its gradual convergence towards a methodological approach centred on the technical understanding of the skilled person.
(Kyra Lueg-Althoff, GRUR Patent 2026, page 216)
UK Supreme Court on technicality of neural networks
In February 2026, the UK Supreme Court issued its longawaited judgment in the case of Emotional Perception AI Ltd. v Comptroller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks. The judgment overturned the UK High Court's decision on the matter of technicality of the claimed use of an artificial neural network for performing media-file recommendations.
(Kemal Bengi-Akyürek, GRUR Patent 2026, page 227)
The legal status of an intervenor in opposition appeal proceedings
In its decision G 2/24 of 25 September 2025 (GRUR-RS 2025, 24947), the Enlarged Board of Appeal addressed the question of what procedural status is held by a party that intervenes during opposition appeal proceedings pursuant to Art. 105 EPC. Although this legal question had already been decided in decision G 3/04 – to the effect that intervention during opposition appeal proceedings confers only the status of a party as of right within the meaning of Art. 107, second sentence EPC, with the consequence that the appeal proceedings end without any possibility of influence by the intervener if the appellant or appellants withdraw their appeal(s) – the Technical Board of Appeal 3.2.04 found sufficient reason to depart from that earlier decision and referred the legal question to the Enlarged Board of Appeal anew (T 1286/23, GRUR-RS 2024, 33154). In decision G 2/24, the Enlarged Board confirmed the legal position established in G 3/04, with the consequence that the opposition of an alleged patent infringer who has intervened only at the stage of opposition appeal proceedings continues to hang by the sword of Damocles of a withdrawal of the appeal(s).
(Christof Keussen, GRUR Patent 2026, page 231)
The managing director as a patent infringer – reflections on the “Belkin v Philips” decision
Is the legal representative of a legal entity, in particular the managing director of a limited liability company, liable for a patent infringement attributable to that legal entity? This question raises fundamental issues of tort law that are not easy to answer. This applies all the more to the UPC, which cannot draw upon a tort law common to the UPCA member states. The lack of a tort law foundation leads to a reluctance – quite familiar from the German debate – to impose an obligation on the managing director to prevent the business activities from resulting in patent infringement that would have been recognisable had the requisite care been exercised. The obligation nevertheless imposed by the Court of Appeal to cease patent-infringing acts of which the managing director is aware or which the Court of First Instance has established in patent infringement proceedings is inconsistent with the rejection of any duty of care incumbent upon the managing director. The solution could lie in imposing slightly stricter liability for negligent acts and less stringent liability where there is knowledge of a (potential) patent infringement which may – and this is precisely why disputes arise over infringement and validity – in fact be lawful.
(Peter Meier-Beck, GRUR Patent 2026, page 207)
Japanese SEP litigation – from the 2014 Grand Panel decision to the 2025 Tokyo District Court’s Pantech v Google Case
This article traces Japanese SEP/FRAND litigation from the 2014 Grand Panel decision in Apple v. Samsung, which set such a high bar for finding an “unwilling licensee” that it caused an eleven-year stagnation in Japanese FRAND disputes, to the Tokyo District Court’s June 2025 judgment in Pantech v. Google, the first case in Japan in which an injunction against a FRAND-declared SEP was granted. The court found Google to be an unwilling licensee based on its refusal to disclose sales data and engage constructively in court-mediated settlement discussions. This article ex-plains the judgment as a significant step toward aligning Japanese practice with global FRAND standards, which is further reinforced by the new Litigation and Mediation Protocols published by the Tokyo District Court in January 2026.
(Koji Tomimoto, Shigeru Osuga and Mitsuhiro Suzuki, GRUR Patent 2026, page 239)
The first authorisation pursuant to Article 3(d) of the SPC Regulation
Article 3(d) of the SPC Regulation demands that the underlying marketing authorisation constitutes the first authorisation for the product concerned. The Federal Patent Court has asked the CJEU whether a first veterinary marketing authorisation satisfies this condition even where a prior human medicinal product authorisation had already been granted for the same active substance. The article endorses the court’s tendency to treat both regulatory regimes as giving rise to independent “first authorisations”.
(Marco Stief, GRUR Patent 2026, page 174)
The Editors’ Choice – UPC (Court of Appeal), November 28, 2025 – Barco/Yealink
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court addresses several key aspects of proceedings for provisional measures. In particular, it refines the rules on competence by confirming that Rule 19.5 RoP applies mutatis mutandis where the seised local division lacks competence, allowing referral to another competent division designated competence is a matter of UPC organisation rather than amatter governed by the Brussels I Recast Regulation. The Court further clarifies that there is no hierarchy between Art. 33(1)(a) and (b) UPCA and defines the level of substantiation required when pleading competence. It also provides guidance on the urgency requirement, especially where provisional measures are sought in connection with applications for a unitary patent. Finally, the Court sets out guiding principles on interim cost awards in provisional measures proceedings.
(Diana Baum and Richard Wunderlich, GRUR Patent 2026, page 190)
The EU-SPC proposals – a further compromise suggestion
Regarding the (new) proposals of the regulations concerning supplementary protection certificates, a compromise proposal is presented which foresees a kind of “EUIPO-WIPO” model together with an appeal before an interdisciplinary appeal board.
(Filip De Corte and Aloys Hüttermann, GRUR Patent 2026, page 177)
You are currently viewing a placeholder content from Facebook. To access the actual content, click the button below. Please note that doing so will share data with third-party providers.
You are currently viewing a placeholder content from Instagram. To access the actual content, click the button below. Please note that doing so will share data with third-party providers.
You are currently viewing a placeholder content from X. To access the actual content, click the button below. Please note that doing so will share data with third-party providers.
