Insights

As of 1 January 2025 some changes to UK Supplementary Protection Certificate (SPC) practice will come into force in relation to human medicines.

In a trade mark infringement case brought by Shorts International Limited (“SIL”) against Google LLC (“Google”) in the High Court of England and Wales, a decision by Michael Tappin KC towards the end of 2024 gave a salutary reminder regarding the scope of trade marks containing descriptive elements.

In a recent decision, the UPC Court of Appeal ruled on the correction of errors in a patent by interpretation. This case, concerning Alexion Pharmaceuticals’ patent (EP3167888), underscores the importance of precise drafting and consistency in arguments used during patent litigation.

Icelandic performance artist Odee Friðriksson’s work, We’re Sorry—an attempt to tackle corporate wrongdoing—has floundered in the High Court. Dehns Trade Mark Attorney, Tiernan Graham, discusses.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Following last week’s historic third consecutive Ferrari outright win at the 24 hours of Le Mans, Dehns Technology, Software and Engineering Associate, Thomas Jeal reflects on another exciting event from this year’s race week: Toyota’s unveiling of their hydrogen combustion engine Hypercar Prototype, the GR LH2 Racing Concept.