Insights

More than ever, companies are appreciating the value of trade secrets as key IP assets that can exploited to improve their commercial edge. Cross-border R&D collaboration and globalised supply chains mean that a company’s confidential information seldom stays neatly within one jurisdiction. Trade secret protection varies in different parts of the world but many governments are proactively updating their legal provisions to ensure that innovators are protected.

Panasonic Holdings Corporation (Panasonic) brought an infringement action against Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp Ltd and OROPE Germany GmBH (OPPO), accusing OPPO of infringing Panasonic’s patent EP 2 568 724 in their 4G-capable products including smartphones and smartwatches. OPPO counterclaimed that they were not given a fair opportunity to obtain a FRAND license, and also counterclaimed for the invalidity of the patent. Emily Dekker, Trainee Patent Attorney discusses this matter in more detail.

Huawei brought an action in the Munich local division against Netgear for infringement of EP3611989 in relation to various of its WiFi access point products. Huawei had declared EP’989 to be essential to the IEEE 802.11ax (“WiFi 6”) standard and so was obliged to offer a licence on Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) terms. However, no licence could be agreed.

Netgear made a preliminary objection challenging the jurisdiction of the UPC to hear the case, counterclaimed for revocation of EP’989 and raised several infringement defences: that EP’989 was not in fact essential to WiFi 6 (i.e. non-infringement), that Huawei’s rights had been exhausted by prior EU supply of the allegedly-infringing products, and that Huawei had failed to offer a FRAND licence as it was obliged.

Huawei prevailed on almost all issues. With the added motivation for Netgear of an impending injunction, the parties reached a settlement in early 2025, so we will not see the various issues tested at appeal.

On 1^st May 2025, Phase 1 of the EUIPO’s design reform came into effect. This is made up of The Amending Regulation (Regulation – EU – 2024/2822) and The Recast Directive (Directive – EU – 2024/2823). This will be followed by Phase 2, which will bring further amendments, and will apply from 1 July 2026.

Many of the changes brought about by this reform are motivated by a desire to align EU design law with the world around us, which is increasingly manifesting in digital forms. One of those changes is the formalisation of protection for animated designs.

Printing giants Hewlett-Packard (“HP”) brought a claim of infringement against French electronics wholesaler LAMA France (“LAMA”) before the Paris Local Division of the UPC at the end of last year, from which they came out (partially) victorious.

The creation and enjoyment of music is, in many ways, one of humanity’s purest creative activities. It is tempting to draw sharp contrast between the aesthetic nature and inexact qualities of musical creation and the analytical rigour of modern scientific research and technological innovation. To translate into IP terms: isn’t music the realm of copyright rather than patents?

With the changes to EU Design law coming into force on 1 May 2025, there are changes to how renewal periods are calculated.  There are also significant increases to the renewal fees.

Holders of EU designs should check carefully that they monitor renewal deadlines according to the new rules from 1 May 2025, especially as these deadlines will now fall a few days earlier in most cases. Consideration should also be given to early payment, where possible, to take advantage of the current lower fees.

After more than 20 years, the legislation for Registered Community Designs is being updated. The first phase of these changes will come into force on 1 May 2025.

Beyond the semantics of the name change from “Community Designs” to “EU Designs”, the purpose is to modernise design protection to adapt to new technologies. This includes provisioning for animation designs, non-physical products, and 3D printing.

The Unified Patent Court (UPC) has been open for a little over a year, and its first substantive decisions on revocation and infringement actions are starting to come through. The latest statistics published by the UPC at the end of October 2024 show a total of 538 cases received by the Court of First Instance, with 206 infringement actions and 274 revocation actions (including counterclaims).  A skim through the UPC decisions page also shows that a wide range of groups are getting involved in the UPC, from large to small companies and from engineering to pharma, putting to bed the fear that uptake in this new court would be low.

We look at the general principles of patent working requirements and take a closer look at some jurisdictions which have more stringent requirements on patent working post-grant.  We also look at what you can do in order to prevent a third party from accessing your patented technology.