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 The case was Seoul Viosys v. expert e-Commerce, and while the patent itself was revoked, the real significance lies in the translation principle the Court set out.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
