Catch up on this week’s key UPC rulings as our AI hosts unpack Professor Willem Hoyng’s expert analysis of the decisions from Week 43, 2025. This week features major decisions on the merits where auxiliary requests saved patents, but public interest concerns led to a notable carve-out from an injunction. We also cover key preliminary injunction rulings.Highlights include:Limited Injunction Due to Public Interest (CD Paris): In Meril v Edwards, although the patent was invalid as granted, Auxiliary Request 2 was found valid and infringed. However, the court allowed one infringing product to remain on the market due to public interest.Patent Invalid as Granted, AR Upheld (CD Milan): In bioMérieux v Labrador, the patent was similarly revoked as granted (added matter/novelty), but Auxiliary Request 3 was upheld as valid, showcasing efficient case management by the court.PI Granted (LD The Hague): A preliminary injunction was granted in Abbott v Sinocare based on a recently granted divisional patent, overcoming the defendant's narrow claim interpretation arguments.PI Granted for Imminent Infringement (LD Hamburg): In Occlutech v Lepu, the court granted a PI against a company based on obtaining CE marking and showcasing products at trade fairs, confirming this constitutes imminent infringement.Tune in to understand the strategic implications of these important decisions.📖 Full Week 43 analysis by Prof. Hoyng:👉 https://www.hoyngrokhmonegier.com/news-insights/upc-unfiltered-by-willem-hoyng-upc-decisions-week-43-2025/Disclaimer: Podcast uses AI-generated voices—minor inaccuracies may occur.

Ask this episode

“What did the council decide on item 42?” — answered with the speaker and the moment.

Transcript

Related