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.
June 2026
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)
In BSH/Electrolux, the EUCJ reinforced the jurisdiction of the court of the defendant’s domicile in infringement proceedings. The exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the EU Member State where the patent was granted over patent revocation proceedings does not preclude this, even if the defendant intends to challenge the validity of the patent – a step which must be taken in the Member State of grant. However, the Court also held that, in an infringement action based on a patent granted by a third country, the court of the defendant’s domicile has jurisdiction to decide, with effect inter partes, on the invalidity of the patent in suit raised as a defence. This article examines the question of whether, and to what extent, such jurisdiction is compatible with the lex loci protectionis which is decisive for the validity of the patent.
(Petermeier-Beck, GRUR Patent 2026, page 163)
‘Pay-for-delay’ agreements in the pharmaceutical sector as unlawful restrictions on competition
In its 23 October 2025 judgment Teva/Cephalon, the CJEU, following the General Court, upheld the Commission's decision of 26 November 2020, which had classified a "pay-for-delay" settlement agreement between the two pharmaceutical companies Teva and Cephalon as a restriction of competition by object within the meaning of Article 101 TFEU and had imposed a fine of €30 million on each undertaking. The judgment aligns with the line of CJEU cases established in Generics (UK), Lundbeck, and Servier, and confirms a strict approach towards agreements by which patent holders seek to forestall generic market entry through pay-for-delay arrangements. The case sharpens the criteria for assessing the benefits that generic manufacturers accept in exchange for withdrawing from the market and thereby provides an occasion for a stocktaking analysis.
(Maik Wolf, GRUR Patent 2026, page 181)
Confidentiality under procedural law applies only to information introduced into the proceedings
The Federal Court of Justice clarifies that the protection of trade secrets under section 145 a German Patent Act (PatG) in conjunction with sections 16–20 Trade Secrets Act (GeschGehG) is unavailable for information that must be disclosed to substantiate a claim asserted in the litigation if that information is not introduced into the proceedings. However, the issue – contested in the case law of the lower courts and in academia – of whether such protection may subsequently be granted in enforcement proceedings for information and accounting data that have been made the subject of a title has not yet been resolved.
(Axel Oldekop, GRUR Patent 2026, page 187)
Life Science Corner: The Summary Procedure at the UPC in Practice – Procedural and Practical Aspects (Part 2)
The UPC's initial orders and decisions have been eagerly awaited and discussed due to the substantive legal issues raised: What is the threshold for a PI, how is a claim interpreted, and what about the risk of imminent infringement (and much more)? For practical application, however, procedural issues are of the same crucial importance. Hence, the following second part of the Summary Proceedings at the UPC is devoted to these.
(Oliver Jan Jüngst and Moritz Schroeder, GRUR Patent 2026, page 169)
Front-loaded but ‘manageable’: On limiting and prioritising challenges to the legal status quo
The bioMérieux/Labrador decision of the Central Division of the Unified Patent Court requires the party challenging the patent to prioritize and, if necessary, even limit the number of invalidity attacks in order to ensure that the proceedings can be managed by the court. This reveals a conflict with the front-loaded approach and its requirement for early, comprehensive submissions. Practitioners are faced with a dilemma. A restriction on the number of attacks appears questionable due to the complexities of alternative interpretations and auxiliary requests. Therefore, a complete presentation that is to avoid preclusion must be reconciled with the need for clear structure and prioritization. The demands on the quality of the lawyer’s submissions are increasing.
(Ralf Emig, Sebastian Dworschak and Konstantin Werner, GRUR Patent 2026, page 145)
The temporal jurisdiction of the Unified Patent Court – Part 3: Continuing acts
The Agreement on a Unified Patent Court (UPCA) does not contain any explicit provisions on the extent to which the Unified Patent Court (UPC) has jurisdiction in infringement proceedings for acts of use that occurred before the UPCA came into force on 1 June 2023. Nor does the UPCA explicitly stipulate whether acts of use from the period prior to 1 June 2023 are subject to the UPCA or the relevant national patent laws of the Contracting Member States (CMS). Following a series of first-instance decisions, the Court of Appeal of the UPC has affirmed its temporal jurisdiction for acts of use that occurred before 1 June 2023 in an independent damages procedure and an infringement procedure, respectively. According to the case law of the Mannheim Local Division (LD) and the Düsseldorf LD, the substantive law of the UPCA also applies in most cases to acts of use from the period prior to 1 June 2023. This article examines the extent to which the current case law of the UPC on temporal jurisdiction and the applicability of the UPCA in the period prior to 1 June 2023 is consistent with Union law and public international law. Of particular interest in this context is the prohibition of retroactive effect under Union law and the principle of non-retroactivity under public international law. Part 1 of the article explained these fundamental principles of Union law and public international law and outlined their relevance to the UPC. Part 2 was devoted to the question of how the jurisdictional clause of Article 32(1)(a) UPCA regarding infringement actions is to be interpreted in the light of the prohibition of retroactive effect and the principle of non-retroactivity. The question of whether in proceedings before the UPC the infringement of a European patent is dealt with under the UPCA or under the national patent law of a CMS or a third State plays a decisive role in this regard. Part 3 analyses how to deal with acts of use that began before the entry into force of the UPCA and continued thereafter, i. e. so-called “continued acts”.
(Simon Klopschinski, GRUR Patent 2026, page 138)
The author explains, following his article in GRUR 2025, 1705, the detrimental effects of designating SPCs as “rights sui generis” when it comes to the creation of a Unitary SPC (USPC) affiliated with the Unitary Patent.
(Winfried Tilmann, GRUR Patent 2026, page 135)
The Unified Patent Court – a case law overview VIII
The third year of the Unified Patent Court (“UPC”) has begun, and with the expansion of several divisions, the continued appointments of judges, and around 1,700 published decisions and orders, the UPC has established itself as an important and popular forum for international patent disputes. Based on the large number of decisions and orders handed down by the Courts of First Instance and the Court of Appeal, the UPC is constantly evolving. It therefore continues to be useful to provide an overview in order to facilitate access to the Court's case law on the Rules of Procedure and the UPCA.
(Klaus Haft, Sabine Agé, Giulia-Isabella Otten, Natali Goginashvili and Alix Fourmaux, GRUR Patent 2026, page 106)
Annual review 2025: Decisions of the Boards of Appeal of the EPO
The report provides an overview of noteworthy decisions issued by the EPO Boards of Appeal in 2025. In view of the large number of decisions issued in 2025, this review is based on decisions relating only to substantive patent law.
(Kemal Bengi-Akyürek and Frédéric Bostedt, GRUR Patent 2026, page 120)
The temporal jurisdiction of the Unified Patent Court – Part 2
The Agreement on a Unified Patent Court (UPCA) does not contain any explicit provisions on the extent to which the Unified Patent Court (UPC) has jurisdiction in infringement proceedings for acts of use that occurred before the UPCA came into force on 1 June 2023. Nor does the UPCA explicitly stipulate whether acts of use from the period prior to 1 June 2023 are subject to the UPCA or the relevant national patent laws of the Contracting Member States (CMS). Following a series of first-instance decisions, the Court of Appeal of the UPC has affirmed its temporal jurisdiction for acts of use that occurred before 1 June 2023 in an independent damages procedure and an infringement procedure, respectively. According to the case law of the Mannheim Local Division (LD) and the Düsseldorf LD, the substantive law of the UPCA also applies in most cases to acts of use from the period prior to 1 June 2023. This article examines the extent to which the current case law of the UPC on temporal jurisdiction and the applicability of the UPCA in the period prior to 1 June 2023 is consistent with Union law and public international law. Of particular interest in this context is the prohibition of retroactive effect under Union law and the principle of non-retroactivity under public international law. Part 1 of the article explained these fundamental principles of Union law and public international law and outlined their relevance to the UPC. Part 2 is devoted to the question of how the jurisdictional clause of Article 32(1) (a) UPCA regarding infringement actions is to be interpreted in the light of the prohibition of retroactive effect and the principle of non-retroactivity. The question of whether in proceedings before the UPC the infringement of a European patent is dealt with under the UPCA or under the national patent law of a CMS or a third State plays a decisive role in this regard. Part 3 will analyse how to deal with acts of use that began before the entry into force of the UPCA and continued thereafter, i. e. so-called “continued acts”.
(Simon Klopschinski, GRUR Patent 2026, page 90)
The Editors’ Choice – EPO (BoA), Borealis Technology Oy/The Dow Chemical Company
The Board of Appeal’s decision highlights the relevance of procedural principles. One of these principles is the power of the boards to review procedural decisions of the first instance. Another principle relates to the parties’ opportunities to present their case in inter partes proceedings. Aspects of the decision consider a so-called “carry-over request”, which was admitted as an auxiliary request in the first instance, but where the admission was overturned in the appeal proceedings and the carry-over request was eventually not admitted to the appeal proceedings. Another aspect considers the admissibility of prior art as an amendment to the appeal.
(Matthias Grob, GRUR Patent 2026, page 2)
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.
