Irides: Weekly global patent litigation update

This edition features updates from: The United Kingdom, Brazil, Canada and the Unified Patent Court (UPC).

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

United Kingdom

Standard Essential Patent holder awarded interim licence payment.

On 30 January 2026, the Patents Court handed down an interim decision in the proceedings brought by TP-Link, an implementer, to seek a final RAND licence to Huawei’s portfolio of Wi-Fi patents. Huawei had applied for a declaration that its offer of an interim licence (referred to as an “adjustable licence” by Huawei) was RAND, or in the alternative, for the Court to determine RAND terms for such an interim licence.

Huawei and TP-Link had agreed that an interim licence regime should be put in place pending the UK RAND trial and that once the licence was signed, Huawei would discontinue its ongoing actions against TP-Link in China, Germany and the UPC. The parties had also agreed that an interim payment should be made. The amount of that interim payment was the central issue for the hearing.

TP-Link’s position was that the final RAND licence should be for a lump sum of $12 million, based on a written offer of April 2025. Huawei argued that the RAND royalty should be calculated at a “rack rate” for the units sold since 2008, when TP-Link first started selling, and on to a confidential end date, giving a much higher value. Both parties agreed that $12 million of the interim payment to Huawei should be non-refundable, since there was no prospect of the final RAND amount being any lower.

For the interim payment amount, TP-Link argued for a calculation based on unpacking of Huawei’s other licences, which gave a result higher than $12 million but lower than the rack rate proposed by Huawei. However, Huawei sought a mid-point between the result from TP-Link’s unpacking analysis and their rack rate amount.

The Judge, Meade J found that TP-Link’s unpacking analysis was not suitable for the determination of an interim licence which was only intended to “hold the ring” until trial. The unpacking analysis was unsupported by expert evidence and so complex as to require a mini-trial. The Judge therefore directed the parties that the interim payment should be the mid-point between $12 million and Huawei’s rack rate, based on TP-Link’s sales from 2008 until the expected date that the final RAND licence is determined in April 2027.

The Judge also awarded Huawei interest on the interim payment at the rate which it had supported in its evidence (US Prime + 1%).
 

Brazil

The Court of the State of Rio de Janeiro introduces new approach to Preliminary Injunctions in Standard Essential Patent cases.

On 17 December 2025, the 7th Business Court of the State of Rio de Janeiro handed down a decision which introduced a new standard approach to Preliminary Injunctions (PIs) when considering Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) and Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) licence terms. The Court confirmed that it would not issue a PI until evidence had been heard and two questions had been considered: (1) is the offer made by the licensor FRAND; and (2) is there infringement of a valid patent. To assist the Court in answering these questions, it will appoint two experts: one to consider infringement/technical issues and a second to consider FRAND terms.  

The Court confirmed that it would not set a specific FRAND figure, instead committing to only determine whether a licensor’s offer is FRAND or not. The intention is that implementors will not be able to obtain a more favourable rate through the Courts and will not be incentivised to bring speculative FRAND claims. The licensor will also be incentivised to make an offer that is FRAND, because if the Court holds that its offer is not FRAND then its injunction request will simply be denied. FRAND terms were said to be those that can be justified rationally, within the rational and commercial logic of the licensor, and that are not intended to benefit or harm any of the market players. In order to assess whether an offer is FRAND, the Court would therefore order the disclosure of all information, communications and contracts that support each parties’ arguments. However, confidential information may be disclosed to the Court and the Court appointed expert only.

The Court also confirmed that: (1) State Courts have jurisdiction over patent infringement claims, even in circumstances where validity may be considered and separate nullity proceedings are pending; (2) unjustified secrecy of these types of claims would no longer be tolerated by the court.
 

Canada

Canada Health launches new Clinical Trial Regulation consultation.

On 20 December 2025, Health Canada opened a public consultation requesting feedback on new proposed Clinical Trial Regulations (CTR) and supporting guidance. The consultation closes on 20 March 2026.

The new proposed CTR will establish a stand-alone regulatory framework which will regulate both the conduct of clinical trials and the importation and sale of drugs used in these trials. It would also give Health Canada direct authority over regulating the conduct of clinical trials in Canada.
 

UPC

Düsseldorf Local Division rules revocation outcome determines scope of infringement analysis in a bifurcated case.
[UPC_CFI_315/2024] 

The Düsseldorf Local Division (LD) dismissed Labrador’s infringement action against bioMérieux following a pivotal development in the bifurcated parallel revocation proceedings. Early in the case, LD, upon request by the claimant and absent any objection from the defendants, bifurcated the defendants’ revocation counterclaim and referred it to the Milan Central Division (CD), where a separate revocation action was already pending. This referral proved determinative. In October 2025, the CD upheld the patent in amended form (auxiliary request 3), maintaining only a narrowed claim 1 (instrument) and claim 2 (method). Bound by the CD’s amended claim text, the LD proceeded on the basis of these revised claims alone.

The amendments proved decisive for infringement. The newly limited claims were construed as requiring a single “device” combining both reagent units and a sample unit. After analysing the allegedly infringing VIDAS 3 system, the Court found that bioMérieux’s products do not include any such combined device; its sample racks, reagent strips and other components are instead separate. This meant that an essential claim feature was missing and neither the instrument nor the method claim was infringed. Because the amended claims were construed in line with the CD’s reasoning to make structural integration in the device a necessary feature, the Court rejected Labrador’s argument that a functional or conceptual link between the sample containers and reagent strips could satisfy the claim. With the claimed “device” absent, there was no basis for literal infringement, nor for infringement under the doctrine of equivalents as the Court considered there to be no means performing the same function as a combined device. 

The LD also highlighted that, once non-infringement was found in a bifurcated case, the question of validity of the patent is no longer relevant. In this case, the EPO’s preliminary opinion in parallel opposition proceedings was therefore not considered by the Court. This reinforces a central strategic consequence: in the UPC’s bifurcated framework, a successful amendment in the CD can effectively end an infringement action without any validity debate at the infringement Court.

With the infringement action dismissed in full, Labrador was ordered to bear costs, and the ceiling for recoverable representation costs was set at €600,000. 
 

UPC

Court of Appeal clarifies requirements for confidentiality under r. 262A RoP.
[UPC_CoA_930/2025]

On 29 January 2026, the Court of Appeal (CoA) handed down a decision addressing confidentiality and r. 262A RoP in the dispute between EOFlow and Insulet. The CoA held that, absent explicit confidentiality provisions in the order as provided for under r. 191 RoP, there is no implied duty of confidentiality imposed when information was provided by one party to another pursuant to an order from the Court. If a party wanted to keep such information confidential, then an application must be filed pursuant to r. 262A RoP which can be made to restrict the use of confidential information to specific people. In the absence of such a r. 262A RoP application, the information provided can be freely used by the party receiving it and is therefore no longer confidential.
 

UPC

Düsseldorf Local Division defines separate cost ceilings for Preliminary Injunction and Merits Proceedings.
[UPC_CFI_658/2025]

On 2 February 2026, the Düsseldorf LD confirmed that costs incurred in Preliminary Injunction (PI) proceedings and those incurred in proceedings on the merits are subject to separate recoverable cost ceilings. This is even though the Court decides reimbursable costs for both PI and the merits proceedings in a single post merits cost procedure. The Court therefore rejected 10x Genomics’ argument that the two ceilings should be combined into a single aggregate cap. Further, in instances where there has been a partial success and a party is only awarded a proportion of its costs (here 70%), that reduction applies both to: (i) the costs incurred by the party; and (ii) the applicable cost ceiling.
 

UPC

Court of Appeal grants employee access to licence agreements with the condition of a 5-year licensing bar.
[UPC_CoA_631/2025 & UPC_CoA_632/2025] 

On 26 January 2026, in the Ericsson v ASUS proceedings, the CoA ruled on the appropriate confidentiality regime to apply to confidential information that Ericsson intended to submit in the proceedings, relating to confidential licence agreements it had entered into with third parties. At first instance the Milan LD imposed a confidentiality regime which allowed one natural person from each party access to the confidential information.

Ericsson appealed the decision, requesting that an External Eyes Only (EEO) regime be in place in respect of the agreements where the counterparties had objected to the first instance confidentiality order. The CoA rejected Ericsson’s request. The Court’s reasoning was similar to the Sun Patent Trust v VIVO decision which was heard on the same day (previously reported here). The Court considered that access by a party’s employee to all documents in the proceedings “will often be essential to ensure compliance with the right of that party to an effective remedy and to a fair trial”. On the facts of the case, there were no substantiated concerns as to the trustworthiness of the proposed ASUS employee and the Court considered that access to the licences was necessary for the employee to perform their role in the litigation. Further, merely having access to aggregated data about the licences (as proposed by the intervener, Apple) would not be sufficient to allow the ASUS employee to examine and challenge the underlying information.

The Court observed that the potential harm to the licence counterparty by allowing a party’s employee access can be mitigated by imposing a licensing bar (i.e. that the employee refrains from involvement in licensing negotiations with the relevant counterparties for a certain period). The Court therefore imposed a 5-year licensing bar on the ASUS employee as a condition for having access to the confidential licence agreements.
 

UPC

Paris Central Division finds subsidiary is not the “same party” as its parent company and can start separate proceedings.
[UPC_CFI_999/2025]

The Paris CD has held that ALD France S.A.S. is entitled to bring revocation proceedings against Nanoval’s patent EP 3 083 107 B1, notwithstanding the parallel infringement and revocation actions involving ALD’s German parent company and Nanoval before the Munich LD.  

The Paris CD held the concept of ‘same parties’ under Art. 33(4) requires the parties to be identical. It acknowledged that there were circumstances where the interests of two legal entities may coincide to such an extent that a judgment against one entity has res judicata effect on the other, in which case the entities are to be regarded as the same party. On the facts, however, the panel held that ALD France was a genuine, independent business with its own assets and employees, and therefore was not a front company for nor same party as its parent. The degree of control the parent company held over ALD France was not a decisive factor given its independent business activity.

The CD also refused to stay the proceedings pending a decision in the counterclaim in the Munich LD proceedings, holding that the requirement of effective legal protection demands a “swift decision” in the nullity action.
 

New episodes: You, Me and the UPC: Case by case

Episode 27: Paris Local Division declines jurisdiction to rule on infringement of the Swiss national patent

Episode 28: Munich LD grants Reestablishment over ambiguous R. 151 Obligation