Advertise on podcast: You, me & the UPC

On 13 October 2026, the Court of Appeal (CoA) dismissed Rematec GmbH & Co KG’s application for leave to appeal against a Mannheim Local Division (LD) order concerning two unsuccessful applications for cost decisions. Following decisions on the merits in both LD and CoA infringement/revocation proceedings against Europe Forestry, Rematec had missed the deadlines for applications for both cost decisions. Listen to Ben Reeves' overview of the decision in this episode. If you have any feedback, questions, or comments, please email us at [email protected]. Find all the episodes as we release them here. Follow us on LinkedIn.

Melissa Dix talks you through a Paris LD decision from 16 October 2026. The Paris LD held that Align’s patent relating to orthodontic clear aligners was valid and infringed by Angelalign. The Court granted an injunction covering 17 UPC Member States, together with recall, removal, destruction, information and damages.  However, it dismissed Align’s arguments relating to allegedly infringing acts in the UK, holding that Align had failed to substantiate the applicable UK law and, in any event, had not established that the relevant defendants had committed infringing acts in the UK. If you have any feedback, questions, or comments, please email us at [email protected]. Find all the episodes as we release them here. Follow us on LinkedIn.

The Court of Appeal (CoA) has confirmed the limited circumstances in which it will interfere with First Instance determinations concerning language and has also provided clarity on formalities relating to electronic signatures on filed pleadings. Tune in to hear Florence Plisner overview of the decision. If you have any feedback, questions, or comments, please email us at [email protected]. Find all the episodes as we release them here. Follow us on LinkedIn.

Milly Wickson discussed the Inficon v Elitech decision from the Düsseldorf LD today. On 6 October 2026, the Düsseldorf LD clarified the limits of r.171(2) RoP when assessing technical evidence of infringement in Inficon v Elitech. If you have any feedback, questions, or comments, please email us at [email protected]. Find all the episodes as we release them here. Follow us on LinkedIn.

Sam Harvey unpacks a Court of Appeal (CoA) decision today.  BF exaCQ AG and ParTec AG, the claimants in these proceedings, had brought patent infringement proceedings against the defendant, NVIDIA in front of the Munich Local Division (LD). In response, the defendant filed a conditional counterclaim for revocation of the patent in-suit, agreeing that a decision on validity would only be required if the patent was found to be infringed. If you have any feedback, questions, or comments, please email us at [email protected]. Find all the episodes as we release them here. Follow us on LinkedIn.

The Brussels LD has refused the defendants’ requests for disclosure in 2seventy bio v Johnson & Johnson and in doing so, provided important guidance on entitlement challenges and the procedural status of patent proprietors in UPC proceedings. Luke Norton explains more in this episode. Listen today. If you have any feedback, questions, or comments, please email us at [email protected]. Find all the episodes as we release them here. Follow us on LinkedIn.

On 15 September 2026, the Munich Local Division (LD) granted Oxford Nanopore Technologies (Oxford) interim relief against MGI, in relation to two patents concerning nanopore sequencing technology and MGI’s Cyclone sequencing platform. The relief awarded extends beyond the UPC contracting member states to the United Kingdom, Ireland, Switzerland and Liechtenstein. Kate O'Sullivan dives into the detail of this decision today. Listen now. For more UPC developments, explore our UPC case tracker. If you have any feedback, questions, or comments, please email us at [email protected]. Find all the episodes as we release them here. Follow us on LinkedIn.

Nischay Mall speaks on the Court of Appeal decision in Heraeus Electronics v Vibrantz today. The decision addresses a number of important procedural and substantive issues, including the effect of national validity judgments before the UPC, the scope of r. 362 RoP, the evidential consequences of a pleading made "on the grounds of lack of knowledge" under r. 171.2 RoP, the relationship between Art. 28 UPCA and national prior user rights, and the circumstances in which infringing conduct in one Contracting Member State can support relief in others. For more UPC developments, explore our UPC case tracker. If you have any feedback, questions, or comments, please email us at [email protected]. Find all the episodes as we release them here. Follow us on LinkedIn.

Today, Olivia Henry unpacks both the first instance and appeal decisions in the Sidel v Omnia case. If you have any feedback, questions, or comments, please email us at [email protected]. Find all the episodes as we release them here. Follow us on LinkedIn.

On 15 September 2026, the Munich LD upheld DivX's unitary patent relating to progressive media streaming and found that Netflix indirectly infringed through the supply of its streaming software. Netflix had sought revocation of the patent and denied infringement, arguing that the patent was anticipated or rendered obvious by various multimedia and streaming disclosures and that, properly construed, its software did not fall within the scope of the claims. Fariha Chowdhury unpacks the decision in today's episode. If you have any feedback, questions, or comments, please email us at [email protected]. Find all the episodes as we release them here. Follow us on LinkedIn.

Melissa Dix discusses a Milan Local Division (LD) decision from 7 September today. The LD granted Abbott a UPC-wide PI against the Chinese company SiSensing and four of its subsidiaries. Abbott is the main supplier of Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM) products for diabetes in the UPC contracting member states. The Court found it more likely than not that the defendants’ CGM product infringed Abbott’s patent and rejected the validity challenges at the provisional stage.  Keep up with more UPC decision by visiting our UPC case tracker. If you have any feedback, questions, or comments, please email us at [email protected]. Find all the episodes as we release them here. Follow us on LinkedIn.

Ewan MacAulay walks you through the Munich Central Division (CD) which was handed down in the free-standing revocation action brought by Wittenstein SE (Wittenstein) against Vestas Wind Systems (Vestas) in relation to a wind turbine gearbox patent EP 4 226 039. Check out our UPC case tracker for more updates. If you have any feedback, questions, or comments, please email us at [email protected]. Find all the episodes as we release them here. Follow us on LinkedIn.

Cassie Blackburn discusses a Court of Appeal (CoA) decision from 3 September in this episode. The CoA issued its decision in WEPA Nederland B.V. v Essity Hygiene concerning an application for evidence preservation and inspection measures. WEPA Nederland B.V. (WEPA) brought a revocation action in the Paris seat of the CD relating to Essity Hygiene (Essity)’s patent, EP 3 289 139, which protects tissue paper containing pulp fibres derived from Miscanthus and a method for manufacturing the same. Essity filed a Defence and Counterclaim, and applied for and obtained, an ex parte order allowing preservation of evidence and inspection of WEPA’s facilities to support its infringement allegation (under Art. 60 UPCA). Stay up to date on more UPC cases by visiting the Bristows UPC case tracker. If you have any feedback, questions, or comments, please email us at [email protected]. Find all the episodes as we release them here. Follow us on LinkedIn.

Listen to Cassie Blackburn's analysis of the Düsseldorf Local Division (LD) decision in fiskaly GmbH v SwissBit AG and Swissbit Germany AG, also concerning an application for evidence preservation and inspection measures. fiskaly GmbH (fiskaly), the proprietor of EP 4 285 308, which relates to the secure registration of sequences of transactions, filed an application on 20 April 2026 for an inspection and preservation order, which was subsequently granted. SwissBit AG and Swissbit Germany AG (SwissBit) filed an application to review the order pursuant to r.197.3 RoP on the basis that fiskaly had failed to demonstrate a sufficient likelihood of infringement. Stay up to date on more UPC cases by visiting the Bristows UPC case tracker. If you have any feedback, questions, or comments, please email us at [email protected]. Find all the episodes as we release them here. Follow us on LinkedIn.

Rachael Cartwright explores a decision that will be of particular interest to medical device manufacturers and their regulatory representatives. The Düsseldorf Local Chamber (LC) considered the scope of liability of an EU authorised representative in proceedings concerning EP 2 892 442, designated in Germany, France and the UK, relating to surgical torque transmitting instruments. The patent proprietor ultimately continued its case only against the German entity acting as the authorised representative for the Chinese manufacturer after settling with the other defendants. The Court found that the accused “Bojin” surgical tools infringed claim 1 of the patent and were suitable for use in an instrument falling within claim 6. If you have any feedback, questions, or comments, please email us at [email protected]. Find all the episodes as we release them here. Follow us on LinkedIn.