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 second Thursday, in just 2 minutes.
A recent Court of Appeal order in SharkNinja v SEB dated 22 May 2026 clarifies a practical but important procedural point: if you file a document at the UPC, the document itself must be electronically signed.
A new decision from the Düsseldorf Local Division in Ottobock v Teufel dated 7 May 2026 highlights the importance of urgency in UPC PI proceedings. The key question was: When did the patentee know — or when should it have known – enough to act?
In ONWARD Medical v Niche Biomedical, decided on 27 March 2026, the Court of Appeal clarified two related – but distinct – issues in PI proceedings.
In Keeex v Adobe and others, the claimant argued that the UPC should also have jurisdiction for alleged infringements in non-UPC countries such as Spain, the UK, Switzerland and Norway. The Local Division accepted this approach. But the Court of Appeal disagreed.
You can follow UPC Video Bites on all major short-form platforms:
One format. Multiple platforms. Always under 120 seconds.
Stay one step ahead in UPC litigation — subscribe to our newsletter.
