Tilman Pfrang, LL.M. | 12th January 2026
This month’s edition highlights significant developments across multiple UPC divisions, including key rulings on added matter, language of proceedings, proportionality of remedies, and the evolving approach to inventive step further departing from the EPO’s problem‑solution framework.
Local Division Munich – GXD-Bio v Myriad
19 December 2025 – UPC_CFI_437/2024; UPC_CFI_681/2024
The Munich Local Division revoked EP 3 346 403 in its entirety for added matter and, independently thereof, dismissed the infringement action. The Court held that the disclosure of breast cancer samples in experimental data did not amount to a disclosure of an invention limited to breast cancer. Nor was the exclusive use of OAZ1 as a sole reference gene directly and unambiguously disclosed. All auxiliary requests failed for the same reasons. Infringement was also denied because the attacked embodiment normalised gene expression to an average of multiple reference genes rather than to OAZ1 alone.
>> to the decision
Court of Appeal – UERAN Technology v Xiaomi
19 December 2025 – UPC_CoA_902/2025
The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal against an order of the President of the Court of First Instance changing the language of proceedings from German to English under Art. 49.5 UPCA. The Court confirmed the broad discretion of the President and emphasised that the assessment is based on fairness, taking into account all circumstances of the parties. If the balance is neutral, the defendant’s position prevails. Neither the seat of the Local Division nor the availability of machine translation is decisive. Appellate review is limited.
>> to the decision
Local Division Düsseldorf – M-A-S v Altech
10 December 2025 – UPC_CFI_316/2024; UPC_CFI_547/2024
The Düsseldorf Local Division clarified important limits on remedies and pleading standards. In cases of indirect infringement, recall, removal and destruction will generally be disproportionate. Interim damages under Rule 119 RoP require a plausible, fact-based estimate; abstract lump sums were rejected. The Court further held that merely naming prior-art documents is insufficient for an inventive-step attack, which must be reasoned in substance. A revocation counterclaim against a third party was held procedurally admissible, but failed on the merits.
>> to the decision
Court of Appeal – Barco v Yealink
28 November 2025 – UPC_CoA_317/2025; UPC_CoA_376/2025
The Court of Appeal confirmed that Art. 33 UPCA governs only the internal allocation of competence within the UPC and is independent of Brussels I Recast. There is no hierarchy between competence based on the place of infringement and the defendant’s domicile, and no need for defendant-specific connecting factors at the competence stage. The Court also upheld the dismissal of provisional measures for lack of urgency, holding that an unreasonable delay occurred between knowledge of the alleged infringement and filing.
>> to the decision
Court of Appeal – Meril v Edwards
25 November 2025 – UPC_CoA_464/2024 et al.
In Meril v Edwards, the Court of Appeal articulated a holistic approach to inventive step, explicitly departing from the EPO’s problem-solution approach. The Court first defined the objective problem based on the technical teaching of the patent and only then identified “realistic starting points” in the prior art. Obviousness was assessed by asking whether the skilled person would have taken the next step, not merely whether they could. The Court clarified that inventive step may also lie in a non-obvious alternative, even without technical improvement.
>> to the decision
Court of Appeal – Amgen v Sanofi/Regeneron
25 November 2025 – UPC_CoA_528/2024; UPC_CoA_529/2024
In a parallel decision, the Court of Appeal confirmed the same holistic inventive-step framework and further elaborated the role of reasonable expectation of success. The likelihood of success, predictability of outcomes, and technical uncertainties were assessed globally, taking into account the maturity of the field and the strength of any pointer in the prior art. The decision reinforces the UPC’s clear divergence from the EPO’s problem-solution-approach.
>> to the decision