Insights

The Unified Patent Court (UPC) has been open for a little over a year, and its first substantive decisions on revocation and infringement actions are starting to come through. The latest statistics published by the UPC at the end of October 2024 show a total of 538 cases received by the Court of First Instance, with 206 infringement actions and 274 revocation actions (including counterclaims).  A skim through the UPC decisions page also shows that a wide range of groups are getting involved in the UPC, from large to small companies and from engineering to pharma, putting to bed the fear that uptake in this new court would be low.

We look at the general principles of patent working requirements and take a closer look at some jurisdictions which have more stringent requirements on patent working post-grant.  We also look at what you can do in order to prevent a third party from accessing your patented technology.

Dehns client, Blackout Technologies, is making headlines with its groundbreaking work in limiting smartphone use in schools. Recently featured in The Times, on BBC Radio 4 and other news outlets, the company is gaining well-deserved recognition for its innovative approach.

Icelandic performance artist Odee Friðriksson’s work, We’re Sorry—an attempt to tackle corporate wrongdoing—has floundered in the High Court. Dehns Trade Mark Attorney, Tiernan Graham, discusses.

In a recent decision, the UPC Court of Appeal ruled on the correction of errors in a patent by interpretation. This case, concerning Alexion Pharmaceuticals’ patent (EP3167888), underscores the importance of precise drafting and consistency in arguments used during patent litigation.

In a trade mark infringement case brought by Shorts International Limited (“SIL”) against Google LLC (“Google”) in the High Court of England and Wales, a decision by Michael Tappin KC towards the end of 2024 gave a salutary reminder regarding the scope of trade marks containing descriptive elements.

As of 1 January 2025 some changes to UK Supplementary Protection Certificate (SPC) practice will come into force in relation to human medicines.

Has a single UPC action yet been stayed in view of a parallel EPO opposition? The court is very reluctant to be delayed by EPO opposition proceedings and remains patentee-friendly in its general approach.

In its long-awaited judgment in SkyKick v Sky, the Supreme Court reversed significant aspects of the Court of Appeal’s decision on bad faith.  This landmark ruling reshapes the interpretation of bad faith in UK trade mark law, with wide-ranging implications for the filing, enforcement, and scope of trade marks.  Businesses and legal advisers must now carefully evaluate existing and prospective broad specifications, as this judgment leaves room for such filings to be challenged on the grounds of bad faith.

Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited (Avago) brought an infringement action against Tesla Germany GmBH and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE (Tesla) on 1 June 2023, accusing Tesla of infringing Avago’s patent EP 1 612 910. Tesla contested Avago’s ownership of the patent, as well as counterclaiming for the invalidity of the patent.