EPO Board of Appeal decision applies a less restrictive (than often encountered) approach to added matter in the case of an intermediate generalisation. It's good to see considering the actual technical teaching rather than just the textual context of words used in the disclosure

Contravention of a standstill agreement does not mean that the UPC lacks jurisdiction over a case. This is probably a rare scenario, and the decision seems correct that the contractual breach does not affect the question of whether the court itself is competent.

This interesting judgment clarifies when a licensee (referred to as 'simple', which appears to mean non-exclusive) can intervene in UPC proceedings, but leaves open whether this would include an infringement action with no invalidity counterclaim.

The UPC is being a bit mean on simultaneous interpretation, refusing to provide it at a hearing, albeit allowing a party to provide it at its own cost. Understandable given the expense, but I think not ideal for an international court system.

When would you request a disclosure order against yourself? To comply with the confidentiality provisions of your licence. And the UPC is happy to oblige!

The issue of public access to court documents continues in this decision, allowing (for the first time) access to an ongoing claim, on the basis that the party seeking access was involved in an EPO opposition relating to the same patent.

The UPC Court of Appeal confirmed the first instance finding that the patent was probably not infringed, and so a provisional injunction was denied. They did so without considering prosecution history, although they said nothing in the prosecution would change the conclusion.

Interesting decision on scope of allowable claim amendment in patent revocation proceedings at the UPC. It's more limited than at the EPO.

A subtle but important point - while the UPC has ordered language change into English in several cases, that is possible only when the patent is in English. Where as in this case the patent was granted in German, there is no legal basis for language change into English.

This is the foundational UPC Court of Appeal judgment on third party access to documents filed at the UPC. It sets a fairly low bar to public access (on a reasoned request filed by a UPC representative) when proceedings are concluded but a high bar while proceedings are ongoing.

Delighted to introduce last night our wonderful speaker from Switchboard to tell us about their fascinating and emotional 50 year history. Thanks to Kilburn & Strode for generous hosting. IP Out

Another UPC decision refusing a language change, in part because two of the defendants requesting the change were based in German-language countries. It will be interesting to see whether the appeal in Curio will change the approach.

Final announcement for this event next Tuesday! Switchboard embodies a unique record of the concerns of the LGBTQ+ community in the UK over the last five decades. Do come and hear this fascinating history!

Two weeks to go 👇🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️

The #UPC distinction between a #Decision and an #Order (the latter having a much shorter appeal deadline) is sometimes counterintuitive, so that even the Court itself sometimes gets it wrong. This case helps to explain.

Do try to join us for this event if you can! Switchboard has a unique social history of the LGBTQ+ community over 50 years embodied in their logs of every call they have taken, and this talk gives a fascinating insight into that archive.