Irides: Weekly global patent litigation update

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

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

UK

Court of Appeal partially overturns Patent Court's decision upholding non-infringement but reversing novelty. 

On 19 February 2026, the Court of Appeal (CoA) (Newey LJ, Arnold LJ and Miles LJ) handed down its decision in the appeal proceedings between Salts Healthcare and Pelican Healthcare. At first instance, the Patents Court had found that the patent was not infringed and that one of the asserted claims was invalid for lack of novelty.

Salts’ patent relates to ostomy bags, which can be connected to a stoma to collect human waste such as faeces or urine after a colostomy or urostomy. In particular, the patent claims an ostomy bag which is welded in a way that distributes force evenly and prevents bulging or sagging when the bag is full.

Rejecting Salts’ appeal that the claim was infringed on a normal interpretation, the Court held that Pelican’s product did not have welds oriented “downwardly towards the bottom of the appliance” as required by the patent. Considering infringement by the doctrine of equivalents, the Court held the skilled person would appreciate that Pelican’s product did work in the same way as claimed by the patent. However, the asserted claim was framed with specific structural requirements, and the Court held that for this reason, among others, the skilled person would have understood that the patentee intended strict compliance with the wording of the claim. As such, the Court upheld the finding of the Patents Court and declined to find infringement by equivalence.

Salts also appealed against the first-instance Court’s finding that the patent was invalid for lack of novelty over a prior art document disclosing an ostomy pouch containing welded portions similar to those in the patent. The Court granted the appeal, finding that the prior art document did not unambiguously disclose the position of the “bottom of the appliance” or the welds’ orientations relative to it.

Finally, the Court granted Salts’ appeal to have Pelican’s costs from before the case was transferred from the IPEC to the Patents Court be limited in accordance with the IPEC scale.
 

China

China announces amendments to regulations for the implementation of the Drug Administration Laws.

The Chinese State Council has announced amendments to the Drug Administration Law of the People’s Republic of China (the Regulations) which will come into effect from 15 May 2026. The amendments to the Regulations encompass changes to the drug development and registration system, as well as tightened regulation on drug production management and distribution.

In particular, amendments have been made to the drugs which are eligible for regulatory data protection – as well as drugs containing new chemical entities, “other eligible drugs” now also qualify for protection. The duration of regulatory data protection has also been amended so that it can be 6 years at most, with scope for deductions, rather than the standard 6-year duration under the previous version of the Regulations.

The amendments also introduce new market exclusivity periods (separate to the data protection mentioned above) for paediatric drugs (for up to two years) and for drugs for the treatment of rare diseases (for up to seven years).

Further information on the application and applicability of the data protection and market exclusivity provisions is expected to be published before the effective date of the amended Regulations.
 

UPC

The Mannheim Local Division issues warning to Amazon of sanctions in Cross Border FRAND dispute.
[UPC_CFI_936/2025]

On 11 February 2026, the Mannheim Local Division (LD) (Judge Tochtermann presiding) issued a further order (the Order) in the ongoing cross-border proceedings between Amazon and Interdigital. The LD reiterated its position that if there was a future UK Court-determined FRAND contract, Amazon would breach the UPC’s Order of 30 September 2025 if it argued that Interdigital was in breach of such a contract by continuing patent infringement proceedings against Amazon in the UPC.

The Order re-stated the UPC position that “no foreign Court should block any other Court from rendering justice, when it is being approached by a party to do so on its territory”.
 

UPC

Düsseldorf Local Division enforces publication measures after finding Infringement.
[UPC_CFI_351/2024, UPC_CFI_595/2024]

On 11 February 2026, the Düsseldorf LD found that Katun Germany GmbH, Katun (E.D.C.) B.V, Katun Corporation and General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd (together Katun) infringed a patent held by Canon Kabushiki Kaisha (Canon) which relates to a printer’s developer supply container. Katun’s infringing products were low-cost alternatives to Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM)-brand products. The Court also rejected Katun’s counterclaim for invalidity. 

Several remedies were sought by Canon in its infringement claim. In particular, Canon sought an order for Katun to publish the operative part of any infringement decision on their websites and confirmation that Canon could publish an announcement of the decision on its own website and in the public media.

Canon relied upon Art. 80 UPCA for its request, which allows the Court to order appropriate measures for the dissemination of information concerning a Court decision. This includes displaying the decision and publishing it in the public media.

When it considered Canon’s publication request, the Court applied a two-step test:

1. whether the claimant has a legitimate interest in publishing the decision; and

2. whether the defendant’s interests outweigh this interest.

The Court found support for this two-step test in a relatively recent decision by the Court of Appeal: Meril v Edwards (UPC_CoA_464/2024, Decision of 25 November 2025). The Meril decision did not expressly state that a two-step test applied, but did conclude that a “legitimate interest” in publication is a relevant consideration and that the interests of the defendants did not outweigh this legitimate interest. 

Applying the aforementioned test, the Court held that Canon had demonstrated a legitimate interest in publication. In particular, the Court noted that Katun had stated on their own websites that their products were non‑infringing, which created a misleading impression as to their authorisation to sell the contested products. Publication was therefore justified to correct that impression and to reach Katun’s extensive customer base, which private notifications alone would not adequately address. 

The Court rejected Katun’s argument that such publication would cause confusion, because Canon had already reached an industry voluntary agreement in which it committed to not designing machines that prevent the use of non‑OEM cartridges. The proposed publication concerned only the finding of patent infringement and did not relate to that agreement. Katun had therefore not shown that their interests outweighed Canon’s interest in publication. 

While Canon had a right to publish the decision, the Court imposed proportionality limits. Canon was permitted to publish the decision online for one month and in no more than five industry publications. This number was considered appropriate in light of the level of industry attention on the issue and the number of companies affected by this issue. In addition, Katun was ordered to publish the operative part of the decision on their own websites for one month, which the Court considered an appropriate measure as Katun had used its own websites to create an impression that it did not infringe the patent. Publication on Katun’s own websites was ordered to remove this impression.
 

UPC

Court of Appeal confirms no unitary effect without full participating state designation.
[UPC_CoA_8/2026]

On 9 February 2026, the Court of Appeal (CoA) dismissed an appeal from Papst Licensing GmBH & Co. KG (Papst) against a decision of the European Patent Office (EPO) rejecting Papst’s application for unitary effect. The CoA found that Art. 3(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1257/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council dated 17 December 2012 implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection (Regulation 1257/2012) cannot be interpreted to allow registration of unitary effect for a granted European patent which does not include the designation of one of the participating states (i.e. a Member State which participates in enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection by virtue of Decision 2011/167/EU or by virtue of a decision adopted in accordance with Article 331(1) of the TFEU a Participating Member State), in this case Malta.  

Papst’s patent application had been filed on 11 December 2017 as a divisional application of an earlier European patent application, which was in turn a divisional application of a Euro-PCT application filed on 31 July 2005. As this was before 1 March 2007 (the date on which Malta acceded to the EPC), the application could not include the designation of this Participating Member State. Consequently, when the patent granted on 16 April 2025, its designations did not include Malta. Papst filed an application for unitary effect, which was deemed to have been filed on 16 April 2025.

Art. 3(1) of Regulation 1257/2012 provides that a European patent granted with the same set of claims in respect of all the Participating Member States shall benefit from unitary effect in the Participating Member States provided that its unitary effect has been registered in the Register for unitary patent protection. Art. 3(2) provides that a European patent granted with different sets of claims for different Participating Member States shall not benefit from unitary effect.

The EPO had rejected Papst’s application for unitary effect on the basis that the patent did not contain claims for Malta and was consequently not granted with the same claims for all Participating Member States. The Paris Central Division rejected Papst request for annulment of the EPO’s decision (previously reported here). Papst subsequently appealed to the CoA seeking, inter alia, a reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) for a preliminary ruling.

Rejecting Papst’s argument that the reference to “all the participating Member States” in Art 3(1) of Regulation 1257/2012 should be interpreted as “all the participating Member States designatable for this European patent” (effectively, unitary effect with a carve-out for Malta), the CoA held that it was apparent from the wording of Art. 3(1) that a European patent can only benefit from unitary effect if it is granted with the same set of claims in respect of all Participating Member States and that Papst’s proposed application of Art. 3(1) would be contra legem. Papst’s appeal was therefore rejected by the CoA.

As its decision to reject the appeal was based on a literal reading of Art. 3(1) of Regulation 1257/2012, the CoA also declined to refer any questions to the CJEU. As yet, the UPC has not referred any questions of EU law to the CJEU.
 

UPC

Court of Appeal provides guidance on the routes of appeal established by r.220.1 and 220.2 of the Rules of Procedure.
[UPC_CoA_4/2026]

On 11 February 2026, the CoA provided further guidance on routes of appeal detailed in the RoP.

The case concerns an appeal of a decision from the Paris Central Division (CD), which had previously ruled that it did not have jurisdiction to hear an infringement claim by Valeo Systemes D’essuyage (Valeo). This decision was reached following a Preliminary Objection (PO) lodged by Robert Bosch France SAS, Robert Bosch GmbH, Robert Bosch S.A, and Robert Bosch Produktie S.A (together Bosch) (the PO related to jurisdiction and language of proceedings). The CD ordered that the claim should be transferred to the Düsseldorf LD and the language of proceedings should be in English (the Order). Valeo appealed this Order and Bosch opposed Valeo’s appeal on the basis that it was inadmissible.

Valeo appealed the Order on the basis of r. 220.2 of the RoP. Several Orders are ‘carved-out’ from this rule, including final decisions of First Instance Courts, decisions terminating proceedings and others listed in r. 220.1(c) and r. 97.5. Valeo argued that the Order was not listed in those carved-out from r. 220.2, so r. 220.2 was the provision applicable to the appeal. In contrast, Bosch considered that r. 220.1(a) applied because r. 21.1 confirms that “A decision of the judge-rapporteur allowing the PO may be appealed pursuant to r. 220.1(a).

The CoA noted that the Order in question concerned a matter of internal jurisdiction and ordered the transfer of the action to another division without terminating the proceedings against any of the parties. As such, the Order was neither a "decision" upholding Bosch’s PO, nor an order that "rejected" the PO. As a result, Bosch’s argument was rejected and it was concluded that r. 21.1 RoP did not apply. Valeo was correct to lodge an appeal under r. 220.2 RoP.

In its decision, the Court clarified that two separate regimes apply to appeals of orders, and these regimes are distinguished in r. 220:

• Decisions and orders against which an appeal may be lodged immediately and without prior authorisation from the first instance court (r. 220.1 RoP); and

• Orders, other than those referred to in r. 220.1 [incorrectly referred to as 221.1 in the decision] RoP, which may be appealed either together with the appeal against the decision on the merits or with the permission of the first instance court (r. 220.2 RoP).

It should be noted that the Court had already suspended the deadline for Bosch to file their defence to Valeo’s appeal of the Order, pending determination of the admissibility of said appeal. However, the CoA did not suspend the first instance infringement proceedings pending the appeal. It commented that first instance cases should proceed without being delayed by appeals as a general rule. Suspensions would only be granted in exceptional circumstances and translation costs were not considered ‘exceptional’. 

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

Episode 31: The Hague Local Division grants Abbott Preliminary Injunctions, extending long arm jurisdiction to non-EU countries

Episode 32: Court of Appeal clarifies requirements for confidentiality