UPC Video Bites

Your Weekly 2-Minute Patent Law Update

21 November 2025 - E8

Milan Central Division limits excessive attacks

In a judgment of 23 October 2025, the Milan branch of the Central Division sent a very clear message to revocation claimants: too many attacks can be a problem in themselves.
 

14 November 2025 - E7

Paris Central Division departs from the problem-solution approach

In a recent decision of 20 October 2025, the Paris seat of the Central Division took a notable step away from the EPO’s traditional problem–solution approach. 
The case, Meril Life Sciences v. Edwards Lifesciences, concerned heart valves and became a showcase for what the Paris Central Division called a holistic inventive-step assessment.
 

7 November 2025 - E6

What does a purpose-oriented feature in a product claim patent claim really do? At the UPC, that question just got a clear answer.

How far does a “purpose” in a patent claim really go?
In BRITA SE v. Aquashield (UPC_CFI_248/2024), the Munich Local Division clarified that purpose-limited device claims are confined to objective suitability, not subjective intent.
 

31 October 2025 - E5

Mannheim says: stay in your lane — excess submissions disregarded

At the UPC, every pleading has its moment. The Mannheim Local Division just struck out a “summary” that went too far — reminding everyone that under Rule 32.3 RoP, anything beyond the allowed scope simply doesn’t count.

24 October 2025 - E4

Direct infringement by delivery – when components are enough

When does delivering parts already count as direct infringement? The Mannheim Local Division says: sooner than you think. Even unassembled kits — or a single component — may cross the line under Art. 25(a) UPCA.

17 October 2025 - E3

Director liability at the UPC – reassurance for executives

Can managing directors be personally liable for patent infringement under the UPC? In Philips v. Belkin (CoA, 3 Oct 2025), the Court clarified when — and when not — such liability arises.

10 October 2025 - E2

Indirect patent infringement at the UPC

In this two-minute bite, we look at the Munich Local Division’s decision in BRITA SE v. Aquashield (UPC_CFI_248/2024) – a case that shows how far indirect infringement can reach under the UPC.
Even where a product itself is no longer protected, the system claim may still bite. And with remedies like warnings and contractual undertakings, the UPC demonstrates that indirect infringement remedies can be almost as powerful as a full injunction.

Watch the video to see how the Court’s reasoning plays out — in just two minutes.

3 October 2025 - E1

No Second Chances for Late Amendments

Think you can add new prior art later at the UPC? Think again. In this episode, we break down a ruling that makes one thing clear: if your prior art was already in the search results—no matter how far down—you’re out of luck.