The Milan local division gives us a rare ex parte provisional injunction.

I don't think I am the only person that thought the first instance decision was correct here.

UPC rules that a claimant who has been required to deposit a security for costs (in a revocation action) does not in general get the money back after winning at first instance only - they need to wait until any appeal is concluded.

Another case in which the UPC declines a provisional injunction where the balance of harm clearly favours the defendant.

This is an interesting pair of cases where ex parte injunctions were sought but refused; however the UPC agreed to order seizure of products (at an exhibition), for which the threshold is lower.

Insulet fails in two actions for provisional injunctions against EOFLOW and Menarini, respectively. Menarini in turn had failed to get the actions joined, or to intervene in the other case.

This is a really interesting decision from the UPC finding infringement by equivalent means, and suggesting a 4 stage test by which equivalents should be assessed. We shall see if it is adopted more widely.

This is an interesting little judgment clarifying what a patentee must do after securing a provisional injunction by the mandatory deadline in order for the injunction not to be revoked.

The UPC has confirmed that breach of a standstill agreement between the parties does not deprive the Court of jurisdiction, nor does it render an action inadmissible. It can only give rise to liability for breach of contract. Darren Smyth reports - eip.com/uk/latest/arti…

Having prevailed at the central division with the patent maintained in amended form, Edwards is also successful at the Munich local division in asserting its patent on prosthetic heart valves against Meril. Monika Rai reports - eip.com/uk/latest/arti…

This is the second DexCom case at the Paris Local Division to be decided purely on the issue of the validity of the patent. (The first case was one of the very first UPC decisions on the merits).

Provisional injunction on hand held vacuum cleaners overturned on appeal as CoA was not convinced the accused products worked as the patent claim requires.

For at least the second time, the UPC Court of Appeal has reversed a first instance decision that I thought was clearly correct. I had better stop predicting.

Here, the UPC elects to extend a period for one of the defendants, rather than order a stay, in view of upcoming EPO appeal hearing.

I argue that the UPC ruling that is has jurisdiction over the UK part of a European patent to consider infringement is a conventional reading of the Brussels Ibis Regulation - German court has jurisdiction over German defendants is a less controversial reading of the case.

Attempts to set aside a decision by default failed. The original failure to meet the defence deadline is confirmed as fatal by the court (although still subject to appeal).

The UPC has considered infringement by equivalents a few times. Here, it declined to opine on a specific test, noting that any test requires functional equivalence as a prerequisite, which was lacking in the case.

The UPC doing their best to make patents enforceable despite difficulties in service in China. Two interesting decisions by default relating to provisional injunctions.

The avalanche transceiver dispute at the UPC reaches its next stage, with the patentee now having prevailed in the action on the merits (after obtaining a provisional injunction).

Here is my report of the state of play at the Unified Patent Court after two years of operation. The new thing in the last six months - lots of cases now settling or otherwise being withdrawn. I estimate the rate about 18% as a lower bound. eip.com/uk/latest/arti…