No fluff. No long podcasts. Just sharp, actionable insights on the latest UPC decisions — in 2 minutes.
In our UPC video series, we break down the latest UPC decisions and developments into clear takeaways. Brief, to the point, and always focused on what matters most for patent practitioners – every Thursday, in just 2 minutes.
In our previous episode, we focused on the Court of Appeal’s endorsement of the holistic inventive-step analysis, confirming the Paris Central Division’s approach.
Today, we stay with the same case — Meril v Edwards — but move to a different issue: injunctions and proportionality.
And here, the Court of Appeal delivers a very firm message: At the UPC, injunctions are the default.
In one of the previous episodes, we looked at the Paris Central Division’s ruling in Meril v Edwards, where the Court departed from the EPO’s problem–solution approach and adopted a holistic three-step analysis:
problem first, realistic starting point second, next-step obviousness third.
Now, in two Court of Appeal decisions issued on 25 November 2025 - Meril v Edwards and Amgen v Sanofi/Regeneron - the UPC Court of Appeal has effectively endorsed that approach and provided the clearest statements yet of how inventive step will be handled across the UPC.
In a decision of 5 November 2025, the UPC Court of Appeal delivered one of the clearest statements so far on how translations of non-EPO-language PCT applications are treated in added-matter analysis. The case was Seoul Viosys v. expert e-Commerce, and while the patent itself was revoked, the real significance lies in the translation principle the Court set out.
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.
You can follow UPC Video Bites on all major short-form platforms:
YouTube Instagram TikTok LinkedIn
One format. Multiple platforms. Always under 120 seconds.
Stay one step ahead in UPC litigation — subscribe to our newsletter.
