Irides: Weekly global patent litigation update

This edition features updates from: The United Kingdom, Germany 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

Supreme Court changes the approach to patentability of Computer Implemented Inventions.

The UK Supreme Court (UKSC) decision in Emotional Perception AI v Comptroller General [2026] UKSC 3 handed down on 11 February 2026, has brought about a seismic shift in the way that patentability of Computer Implemented Inventions is to be assessed in the UK. The nature of this seismic activity, however, is potentially of greater relevance to patent practitioners than to patent owners. While the decision changes the nature and focus of some of the tests that must be satisfied for a Computer Implemented Invention to be patented, it does not necessarily raise or lower the overall bar. 

Computer programs “as such” are excluded from patentability under s. 1(2)(c) PA 1977 (corresponding to Art. 52(2)(c) and 52(3) EPC) and for 20 years the Courts have followed the Aerotel test set out by the Court of Appeal in Aerotel Ltd v Telco Holdings Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 1371. The "Aerotel approach" put the English Courts at odds with EPO practice, which has followed a different approach to the issue, often referred to as the Comvik test, taken from the EPO's Technical Board of Appeal decision T641/00. 

Under the four step Aerotel test, the question of patent eligibility is to be assessed by: 1) properly construing the claim; 2) identifying the actual contribution; 3) asking whether the contribution falls solely within excluded subject matter; and 4) checking whether the actual or alleged contribution is actually technical in nature. By contrast, under Comvik, the patent eligibility bar is set much lower, with the question of patent eligibility essentially being satisfied if any hardware is recited in the claim. The key nuance to the Comvik approach, however, is that this lowering of the "patent eligibility hurdle" goes hand in hand with a raising of the bar for the accompanying inventive step test, where claim features that do not provide a technical contribution to the prior art are discounted. 

The UKSC has now ruled that the Aerotel test should no longer be followed. The Court noted that this test was a legitimate product of its time; a time when it was not clear that the EPO’s Comvik test would endure. However, the Court noted that since the outcome of the Enlarged Board of Appeal case G1/19, which overtly endorsed the Comvik approach and implicitly endorsed criticism of Aerotel, this is no longer the case. Accordingly, the Court decided that the UK approach on this issue should be consistent with that of the EPO and G1/19, and remitted the case to the UKIPO Hearing Officer to apply the new standard.

A further interesting aspect of this case, as has been alluded to above, is the fact that the Comvik approach necessitates considering whether individual features of an invention are technical (or non technical) as part of, or prelude to, the inventive step assessment. It has been clearly demonstrated in the EPO how this consideration can be stitched into the EPO’s “problem-solution” approach to inventive step. It will now be incumbent on English Courts to do the same. The Court dismissed arguments that by endorsing G1/19 (and thus, the Comvik approach), it would be necessary to replace the English Courts’ established approach to inventive step under Pozzoli with a “problem-solution” style approach, and they overtly endorsed the Pozzoli test. They also discounted arguments that doing so would create a “Frankenstein monster” of a test.

The Court helpfully provided some guidance on how to reconcile the Comvik approach to patent eligibility with the Pozzoli test for inventive step, outlining the principles of an "intermediate step" to sit between the patent eligibility enquiry and the obviousness assessment. Nevertheless, patent practitioners, examiners and English Courts will now have to forge new ground in figuring out how to apply these principles and adapt a “technical features only” filter in practice.

The Courts have long struggled with the question of how to separate out the test for patent eligibility from tests for novelty and inventive step. With this decision, the UKSC has overtly sided with the EPO in concluding that it is more appropriate to import an assessment of the “technical” nature of claim features into an inventive step assessment rather than to import questions of inventiveness into an enquiry into patent eligibility. This aligns the UK and the EPO on the opposite side of the debate to the US which it could be said still includes aspects of obviousness/prior art analysis as part of how the 2-step Mayo/Alice patent eligibility test for Computer Implement Inventions established by the US Supreme Court is dealt with in practice.
 

Germany

Munich Regional Court finds that several ASUS Wi-Fi 6-enabled devices infringe, rejects ASUS’s FRAND/compulsory licence defence, and grants Wilus a broad injunction, disclosure, recall and damages.

In a judgment from 8 January 2026 that has recently become public, the Munich Regional Court (LG München I) held that ASUS and its German distributors infringed EP 3 512 289, owned jointly by Wilus and SK Telecom, through the sale of multiple Wi-Fi 6 enabled devices including laptops, smartphones, PCs and mini PCs. Wi-Fi 6 enabled devices including laptops, smartphones, PCs and miniPCs. 

ASUS did not dispute that the accused smartphones, laptops, mini‑PCs and all‑in‑one devices implement the Wi-Fi 6 standard. Wilus offered licences both via the Sisvel WiFi 6 pool and through a bilateral portfolio licence; ASUS advanced a FRAND defence and sought a stay pending revocation proceedings.

The Court held that the WiFi 6 standard literally implements all relevant features of EP 3 512 289 and that the ASUS devices therefore directly and indirectly infringe. The Court rejected the FRAND/antitrust compulsory licence defence, finding ASUS not to be a willing licensee under the Huawei v ZTE framework as interpreted by the German Courts. In particular, ASUS failed to (i) make an unconditional partial payment of undisputed royalties, and (ii) provide security corresponding to the patent holder’s last offer, as required by OLG Munich. Its security deposit was based on its own rejected counter offer, which the Court deemed insufficient. On this basis alone, the Court considered the FRAND defence to fail, without needing to find Wilus’s offers abusive.

Comparable licences were stated to be the preferred method of determining whether an offer is FRAND. In this case although the plaintiff submitted comparable licences, the payment amounts were redacted. The Court therefore carried out a top‑down check as a control, taking into account:  

• the size and composition of the Sisvel Wi‑Fi 6 pool (including Huawei, Panasonic, Philips, SK Telecom and Wilus),
• Wilus/SK Telecom’s share of Wi‑Fi 6‑relevant patent families, and
• typical aggregate royalty burdens and device price points

Despite a pending revocation action, the Court declined to stay the infringement proceedings, finding there was not a high likelihood of revocation. The Court found the patent validly claims priority from KR 20160147189 and that none of ASUS’s cited prior art (including WO 2018/073171, IEEE contributions and earlier EDCA related disclosures) directly and unambiguously disclosed the dual path logic required by feature 4. Novelty and inventive step attacks were therefore unlikely to succeed.0147189 and that none of ASUS’s cited prior art (including WO 2018/073171, IEEE contributions and earlier EDCA related disclosures) directly and unambiguously path logic required by feature 4. Novelty and inventive step attacks were therefore unlikely to succeed.

It concluded that the Sisvel Wi‑Fi 6 pool’s published rates (€0.60 standard/€0.50 compliant) and Wilus’s bilateral portfolio offers both sit comfortably within the FRAND range, especially given ASUS’s portfolio mix of higher‑value PCs and laptops.  As a result the Court granted a permanent injunction against further infringement in Germany, recall of infringing products from commercial customers, destruction of infringing stock, disclosure of extensive information and accounting information, and liability for damages dating back to February 2022. Enforcement of the injunction is conditional on a security of €3.5 million.
 

UPC

Hague Local Division grants Abbott Preliminary Injunctions, extending long arm jurisdiction to non-EU countries.
[UPC_CFI_830/2025, UPC_CFI_875/2025] 

On 6 February 2026, The Hague Local Division (LD) granted Abbott provisional injunctions in relation to two of its Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM) patents, EP 3 960 072 (the insertion device patent) (EP 072) and EP 2 720 610 (the stacked sensor patent) (EP 610). The actions were brought against the China-based MicroTech, its Hong Kong based subsidiary SenEaron, The Netherlands-based companies Lotus and Medeco, and a number of Mediq entities based in The Netherlands and Germany. The allegedly infringing products were manufactured by MicroTech and imported into several EU countries by Medeco. Lotus was the EU Authorised Representative (EUAR) under the Medical Devices Regulation for MicroTech’s CGM products.

Confirming that all divisions of the UPC are Courts of domicile of a defendant domiciled anywhere within the UPC, The Hague LD had jurisdiction over all Dutch and German entities. That domicile also gave jurisdiction to hear the case of alleged infringement of the Spanish designation in Spain (following BSH). It further had international jurisdiction over the non-UPCA companies, on the basis that Lotus - the named EUAR - was an anchor defendant under Art. 8(1) Brussels I Recast, acting as at least an intermediary for MicroTech and SenEaron in the EU, including Spain. It was noted that it was “foreseeable” for MicroTech and SenEaron that they might be sued in the Member State where Lotus, is domiciled.

On urgency, in the EP 610 proceedings, The Hague LD considered that a period of three months from receipt of samples to commencing proceedings did not constitute undue delay, in circumstances where the infringement testing took 3 months and proceedings were commenced the day after the testing was completed. In the EP 072 proceedings, a period of 2.5 months was also acceptable, where the testing took a little over a month and proceedings were commenced 6 weeks later. Samples obtained, but satisfactorily evidenced as lost by a courier, did not start the urgency clock ticking.

On validity, the Court held that the defendants failed to meet the threshold for establishing that either patent was more likely than not invalid, due to added matter, sufficiency attacks and lack of novelty/inventive step. Infringement of EP 072 was undisputed, and infringement of EP 610 was established in relation to one of the products to which the testing related (Abbott confirming at the hearing that its application was limited to that product). In granting provisional measures in a number of UPC contracting states as well as Spain, the Court took into account submissions that an injunction was necessary and urgent to prevent aggressive and irreversible price reduction resulting in unquantifiable damage. Relief included the grant of provisional injunctions, delivery up of goods and the provision of information regarding distribution channels, but not information on prices and sales as this was deemed only necessary for the calculation of damages.
 

UPC

Paris Local Division Orders Henkel to Disclose Technical Data Sheets in Bostik Infringement Action. 
[UFI_CFI_583/2025]

On 4 February 2026, the Paris LD granted Bostik’s request that Henkel (the alleged infringer) produce evidence under Art. 59 UCPA and r. 190 RoP. The request was for current data sheets for certain of Henkel’s Loctite Liofol branded flexible laminate packaging products.

The Paris LD considered it to be reasonable and proportionate to grant the request to produce documents. Bostik’s provision of available historical data sheets and testing of a sample were considered necessary and sufficient to make the infringement allegations plausible. The data sheets requested were in Henkel's possession, and it was not relevant that Bostik could obtain such sheets by filling in a form on its website when it was unclear the relevance of any documents that could be obtained. 

The Paris LD refused to order:

1. that the data sheets be provided by email and the CMS; instead ordering the use of the CMS in accordance with r. 4.1 RoP;
2. a €2,000 per day penalty for failure to comply, noting that the Court can draw its own conclusions about non-compliance; and
3. that the parties had permission to submit further written pleadings in light of the evidence produced under r. 36 RoP, accepting that the parties should be able to comment on the documents in subsequent submissions but that r. 36 RoP did not apply at this stage of proceedings.
    

UPC

Court of Appeal upholds revoking of Saisie Order and Clarifies Limits on Amended Requests Under r. 222.2 RoP.
[UPC_CoA_891/2025] 

The Court of Appeal (CoA) recently dismissed Centripetal’s appeal against the Mannheim LD’s decision (following a request for review) to revoke an earlier saisie order, on the basis that Centripetal’s request was inadmissible.  

On appeal, Centripetal no longer attempted to defend the saisie order as granted but instead asked the CoA to maintain it in an amended form. The Court held that the amended request was inadmissible under r. 222.2 RoP, which allows new submissions to be disregarded by the CoA, because it introduced new and broader demands that had not been made before LD at first instance. In particular, Centripetal sought the production of documents regardless of location and requested vague, expanded categories of technical descriptions going beyond the scope and location specific limits of the original order. The Court found that Centripetal had offered no justification for not submitting these amendments earlier and that introducing them on appeal would seriously prejudice Palo Alto’s ability to defend itself. 

Because Centripetal did not defend the original saisie order and its amended request was inadmissible, the CoA upheld the LD’s revocation of the saisie order in full. The appeal was therefore rejected, and Centripetal was ordered to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings.

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

Episode 27: Düsseldorf Local Division dismisses Ona Patents SL’s infringement action against Google

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