Irides: Weekly patent litigation update

This edition features updates from: The Netherlands,  the Unified Patent Court (UPC) and the European Commission (EC).

The Irides Weekly Update is our round-up of patent litigation news highlights from around the world.
 

The Netherlands 

Dutch Court grants preliminary injunction against Glenmark.

The District Court of The Hague has granted a Preliminary Injunction (PI) against Glenmark, ruling that the premature listing of its product in the Dutch drug database, the G-Standaard, constituted an infringement of Novartis’ SPC. 

The dispute concerned Novartis’ SPC for eltrombopag, the active ingredient in Revolade®. The SPC was in force in the Netherlands until 14 September 2025. However, Glenmark listed its product in the G-Standaard in August 2025, indicating that it would be available on the Dutch market from 1 September 2025.  Novartis argued that this constituted an “offer” to market the product before expiry of the SPC and therefore an infringement. 

Glenmark did not dispute that, in principle, its listing in the G-Standaard could be considered an infringing act. However, it argued that the Court should not grant a PI because the listing was necessary to enable market entry on “day one” after SPC expiry on 15 September 2025.  Glenmark also argued that its actions were permitted under the SPC Manufacturing Waiver [see previous Irides here] and tried to justify its actions by reference to the EU legislative proposal to extend the so-called “Bolar-exemption”, which would allow generic suppliers to take preparatory steps in the context of a reimbursement process before the expiry of an SPC.  

The Court rejected Glenmark’s arguments ruling that the balance of interests favoured Novartis and that the premature listing in the G-Standaard qualified as an “offer” under Dutch patent law, resulting in immediate price erosion and reduction in Novartis’ market share. The Court also rejected Glenmark’s arguments based on the SPC Manufacturing Waiver, noting that listing in the G-Standaard is not a permitted act.  Finally, the Court held that Glenmark could not rely on the legislative proposal to extend the Bolar Exemption. First, the Court noted that the proposal has not yet been adopted and therefore current case law and precedent should prevail.  Second, the Court remarked that even if the proposal eventually becomes law, is not clear whether inclusion in the Dutch G-Standaard would fall within its scope.

The Court therefore ordered Glenmark to remove its product from the G-Standaard and to pay Novartis’ costs of the proceedings.
 

UPC

Mannheim Local Division clarifies position on direct infringement (UPC_CFI_338/2024). 

On 12 September 2025, the Mannheim Local Division handed down its decision relating to an infringement action filed by bellisaa HAAS GmbH (bellissa) against Windhager GmbH (Windhager) and two of its managing directors. bellissa’s patent, EP 2 223 589 (EP 589) protects a garden bed edging system with lockable metal strips. bellissa alleged patent infringement with reference to Windhager’s Austrian website with supply of infringing products to Germany, Austria and Luxembourg. Windhager counterclaimed for revocation of EP 589 on the grounds of lack of novelty and inventive step. 

The invention of EP 589 allows the metal strips to be assembled in a simple manner at the place of use without the addition of further objects. In its assessment of validity, the Court considered the prior art and found the invention to be both novel and inventive, noting that for inventive step it was not sufficient to combine prior art without either explaining why the skilled person would do so or proving that the relevant prior art formed a part of the common general knowledge. 

Turning to infringement, the Court found that at least two components of the contested embodiment, assembled as intended, realise the teaching of claim 1. The contested embodiments are advertised for sale via Windhager’s website, amounting to direct infringement in accordance with Art. 25(a) UPCA. It was not relevant that the edging strips are sold separately; the website emphasised that the edging is easy to install by the customer and can be extended as required. Windhager had not denied the supply of the lawn edges and in particular had not proved that the edging was only sold individually and that orders for more than one component were denied. The Court clarified that it is irrelevant for direct patent infringement that the edgings are only offered in a non-assembled state. The offering and sale of all components of an infringing product to be assembled in a modular system at the place of use constitutes direct infringement. Further, the sale of just one edging strip may also amount to direct infringement as the possibility of later adding further edging strips was advertised and evident.  

The Court also considered the acts of the managing directors and found it had not been established that the individuals were responsible for the patent infringing acts of Windhager. Under the UPCA, it is not sufficient to assume that the managing directors of a company have infringed a patent simply by virtue of being a managing director; to prove such liability the individual must be involved in the specific patent infringement in question. 

The Court accepted jurisdiction for acts committed in Germany, Austria and Luxembourg and pan-territorial relief was granted, including (i) an injunction, (ii) recall, removal and destruction, (iii) provision of information, (iv) damages, and (v) penalty payment up to €250,000 for each case of infringement. The infringement claims against the managing directors were dismissed along with the counterclaim for revocation. 
 

UPC

Düsseldorf Local Division grants inspection order at IFA Berlin Trade Show (UPC_CFI_834/2025).

On 4 September 2025, the Düsseldorf Local Division issued an ex parte order permitting Ecovacs Robotics Co., Ltd. (Ecovacs) to inspect and preserve evidence displayed on the exhibit stand of Hong Kong-based Roborock Limited (Roborock) at the Internationale Funkausstellung (IFA) 2025 which took place in Berlin on 5 to 9 September 2025.  

Ecovacs is the proprietor of EP 3 808 512 B1 (EP 512), entitled ‘Robot localisation method, robot and storage medium’, which covers methods and systems for robot localisation using environmental mapping and boundary detection. Ecovacs submitted that it had good reason to believe that the supply and sale of Roborock’s vacuum robots in Europe would infringe EP 512 (Ecovacs had previously purchased a vacuum via Roborock’s German subsidiary). 

In order to obtain sufficient evidence to support this, Ecovacs applied for an order permitting them to carry out on-site inspection with an expert and preserve evidence of the vacuums which would be on display at the IFA. If on-site inspection would not be possible, Ecovacs requested permission to have the products physically seized by a bailiff.  

The Court granted the Order and found Ecovacs’ request credible and urgent, noting that the Ecovacs had no other way of proving the defendant’s manufacturing and supplying activities, as it generally operated from Hong Kong. The risk of evidence destruction through short-term software updates or physical removal justified the ex parte nature of the order. 

The Court emphasised the overriding interests of the patentee as well as proportionality, explaining that it had “designed the inspection order in such a way that the defendant's trade fair activities must be disturbed or interrupted as little as possible. Certain broader requests (e.g. inspection of unspecified robots) were denied to prevent a “fishing expedition”. 

The order was conditional on Ecovacs initiating main proceedings on the merits within 31 calendar days or 20 working days after receiving the expert’s written description of the inspected products.
 

UPC

Preliminary injunction granted by The Hague Local Division on basis of infringement by equivalence (UPC_CFI_479/2025).

On 11 September 2025, The Hague Local Division issued a Preliminary Injunction (PI) in the case of Washtower v Wasombouw, having found infringement more likely than not following the Plant-e v. Arkyne equivalence test previously put forward by the same local division.

Washtower initiated PI proceedings against the defendants, alleging infringement of EP 3 522 755 relating to a washing machine cabinet that holds a washing machine at waist level. The defendants argued that there was no infringement, as their L-shaped retaining member is made of plastic rather than metal, as required by the claim and that the PI application was not brought with the required urgency. The defendants also argued that the patent was invalid due to added matter and a lack of inventive step.

Most notably, the PI was granted on the basis of infringement by equivalence in relation to the L-shaped retaining member. Although the patent claim specified a metal strip, the defendants used a plastic component. Applying the four-part equivalence test from Plant-e v. Arkyne (put forward by both parties, and in absence of a test being set by the CoA) the Court concluded that the plastic strip performed the same function: preventing the washing machine from sliding off the carrier, with essentially the same result. The Court dismissed arguments that the plastic strip was merely aesthetic, noting that it was positioned and dimensioned to serve a retaining function. It also found that extending protection to cover the plastic variant was fair to the patentee and did not undermine legal certainty for third parties, especially given the absence of any technical reason in the patent why only metal would suffice.

This case demonstrates the “more likely than not” requirement for assessing infringement in granting a PI may also require an assessment of equivalents.

The Court also rejected the defendants’ added matter objection, which focused on the inclusion of an L-shaped retaining member in claim 1. The Court found that this feature was disclosed independently of the cover plate in both the original application text and figures. It agreed with the EPO Technical Board of Appeal that the retaining member was not inextricably linked to the cover plate and was sufficiently supported by the application as filed.

On inventive step, the Court held that the combination of prior art documents cited by the defendants did not render the claimed invention obvious. It emphasised the synergistic effect of the vertical support plate (for transmitting vertical forces) and the L-shaped retaining member (for preventing horizontal displacement), concluding that these features together addressed the challenge of stabilizing a vibrating washing machine in a cabinet. The Court found no motivation in the prior art to combine the cited references in a way that would lead to the claimed invention.

Another notable point in the decision was on the issue of urgency. Although the defendants argued that the claimants could have prepared earlier given the EPO’s “intention to grant” notice in December 2024, the court accepted that Washtower moved promptly after the patent was formally granted four months later, in April 2025. Within weeks of formal grant, Washtower had ordered and examined the accused products, sent a cease-and-desist letter, and filed the application for relief (all within two months of formal grant). In light of this timeline, the court did not consider it decisive that the claimants could have ordered the accused product earlier. The Court therefore rejected the notion of undue delay.

On the question of whether a preliminary measure is necessary, the Court was persuaded by the risk of irreparable harm, including price erosion, loss of market share, and brand dilution. It noted that washing machine cabinets are infrequent purchases, meaning each lost sale could represent a long-term customer loss. The Court also accepted  Washtower’s argument that it was rebuilding its market presence following the termination of its prior licensing arrangement with the defendants, and that continued infringement would undermine those efforts. These factors justified the need for swift intervention. 

As a final point, the Court rejected a request for enforcement security of EUR 500,000: “Since the Applicants are an SME, and given the relatively minor impact on Defendants’ overall sales, the Court will order a security of € 25,000 to be deposited at the Court.”
 

EC

European Commission launches public consultation on the draft revised Technology Transfer Block Exemption Regulation and Technology Transfer Guidelines.

On 11 September 2025, the European Commission published drafts of the revised Technology Transfer Block Exemption Regulation (TTBER) and Technology Transfer Guidelines. TTBER provides a safe harbour for certain technology transfer agreements with the aim of promoting research and development. The proposed changes include:  

1. clarification of the TTBER market share threshold for technology markets; 
2. new guidance on data licensing; 
3. modification of the guidance on technology pools; 
4. new guidance on Licensing Negotiations Groups; and  
5. other changes primarily aiming to increase clarity, reflect recent case law and ensure coherence with other recently revised competition legislation.

The Commission has requested stakeholder feedback on the proposed changes. The current TTBER expires in April 2026. Feedback can be submitted here.