Irides: Weekly global patent litigation update

This edition features updates from: Denmark 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 upholds findings in DSM v Mara patent battle.

On 24 February 2026, the Court of Appeal (CoA) dismissed the appeals brought by DSM IP Assets (DSM) and Mara Renewables Corporation (Mara) respectively, each party having appealed the first instance judgment of Mr Justice Mellor (which covered three patents) in respect of one patent apiece.

DSM had originally alleged infringement of three patents, with Mara counterclaiming for revocation on a variety of grounds. Each of the patents related to products or processes for extracting oils from certain microbes, said oils containing high levels of polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs), notably an omega-3 PUFA called docosahexaenoic acid (DHA).

Mara successfully invalidated two of DSM’s three patents at first instance and Mr Justice Mellor granted Mara permission to appeal on the remaining patent (EP 2 921 155), which related to the use of a protease enzyme to extract the oil from the microbial cells. Having been refused permission by the trial judge, DSM obtained permission to appeal from the CoA in respect of one of the patents which had been revoked EP 2 576 801 (it chose not to appeal the decision concerning the third patent EP 3 530 740 which claimed an oil containing high percentage of DHA). The patent under appeal claimed a process for extracting the microbial oil from the cells.

DSM’s appeal failed because the CoA agreed with the trial judge that the feature of the claim “wherein the lipid contains <5% organic solvent” concerned the solvent content of the lipid resulting from the process, rather than the levels of solvent used throughout the process. Having adopted that construction, the Court held that the claimed process was obvious in light of the prior art. Mara’s appeal on EP 2 921 155 also failed as the CoA was not persuaded by Mara’s argument that the technique of enzymatic lysis, which led to a gentler and more easily breakable emulsion being formed, was obvious. In both appeals, the CoA held that Mr Justice Mellor had made no error in his assessment in finding that both patents were obvious, even on the alternative construction advanced by the patentee on EP 2 576 801. 
 

USA

The Federal Circuit overturned the District of Delaware’s decision and reinstates patent eligibility for REGENXBIO’s Gene Therapy.

On 20 February 2026, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit overturned the District of Delaware’s first instance finding that U.S. Patent 10,526,617 is ineligible for patent protection under 35 U.S.C. §101. The Appellate Court (AC) held that the asserted claims were not directed to a natural phenomenon, and so reversed the District Court’s (DC) findings on ineligibility, and remanded the case for further proceedings. 

REGENXBIO’s patent is directed to genetically engineered host cells that contain Adeno-Associated Virus (AAV) rh.10 sequences. REGENXBIO accused Sarepta of infringing various claims of the patent, based on Sarepta’s use of the AAV variant rh.74 in cultured host cells to make a gene therapy product which treats Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Both parties sought summary judgment on whether the asserted claims were eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

The DC had determined that none of the individual naturally occurring components in the claims had been changed and that “combin[ing] natural products and put[ting] them in a host cell does not make the invention patentable under § 101.” The DC had further considered and disregarded REGENXBIO’s argument that the claimed human-made genetically engineered host cell possessed utility for gene therapy, as nothing in the claims disclosed use of the recombinant nucleic acid for a particular purpose. As a result, it granted summary judgment in Serepta’s favour and held all asserted claims of the patent ineligible under U.S.C. §101.

The AC held that the question to be asked is whether the claimed host cells have “markedly different characteristics” and have “the potential for significant utility” from that which is naturally occurring. Considering previous Supreme Court authority, the AC considered here that the claimed nucleic acid molecules, although containing naturally occurring segments of DNA, are “not nature’s handiwork” and “not . . . a hitherto unknown natural phenomenon, but . . .a nonnaturally occurring manufacture or composition of matter.” Similarly, it found that “the lab technician unquestionably creates something new” when she splices together the claimed recombinant nucleic acid molecule that encodes an AAV vp1 capsid protein and a heterologous non-AAV sequence and inserts said molecule into a host cell. 

The AC further disagreed with the DC’s findings on the basis that these were inconsistent with undisputed scientific evidence, as the patent’s claims are not being merely directed to repackaging products of nature. Moreover, it found that the DC’s analysis took too narrow a view of the asserted claims by focusing on whether the individual components of the claim were markedly different from what is naturally occurring and failed to consider whether the claimed composition as a whole was “not naturally occurring.” 

The AC also found it to be undisputed that the claimed composition has “the potential for significant utility.” Unlike isolated AAV rh.10 sequences and non-AAV sequences on their own, various embodiments of the claimed compositions “are beneficial for gene delivery to selected host cells and gene therapy patients.” Whilst Sarepta argued to the contrary, the AC considered whether the claimed composition has “the potential for significant utility” even if that utility is only implicit—as was clearly the case here.

Accordingly, the AC found that the claimed host cells contained a recombinant nucleic acid molecule that, by definition, is markedly different from anything occurring in nature. The claimed host cells are, therefore, not patent-ineligible claims to naturally occurring subject matter. On this basis, the AC reversed the DC’s findings on eligibility and remanded the case for further proceedings.
 

USA

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and Department of Justice reaffirm importance of injunctions to protect Innovation filing a statement of interest.

On 27 February 2026, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and the Department of Justice Antitrust Division (DoJ) filed a statement of interest in Collision Communications, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., et al. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The statement concerns the grant of injunctions in patent proceedings, and in particular, whether non-practicing entities can be awarded injunctions.

In the case in question, following a jury awarding damages for past infringement of its four patents, Collision sought a permanent injunction against Samsung in respect of one of these patents.

Collision argues that it satisfies the four-factor test for injunctive relief set out in eBay Inc. v. MercExchange L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (2006) (eBay), in particular that it would suffer irreparable harm from ongoing infringement. Samsung’s position is that, as a non-practicing entity, Collision would not suffer irreparable harm as a royalty under a licence would represent adequate compensation. Rather than commenting on the merits of the case, the statement of interest focuses on the availability of injunctive relief and the key principles behind the use of the patent system to protect and advance innovation. The statement highlights that incentivising innovation is undermined when the availability of injunctions is unduly limited.

The statement of interest focuses on the four-factor test set out by the Supreme Court in eBay: irreparable harm, inadequacy of monetary damages, balance of hardships and public interest. It highlights that consideration of all of these factors is consistent with the traditional principles of equity and that wholesale categorical rules as to their application should be rejected. In particular, it notes that there should be no categorical rule that a patentee willing to license its patent could not establish irreparable harm. 

Turning specifically to non-practicing patentees, the statement notes that such parties can still suffer irreparable harm from infringement, citing the Supreme Court’s comments in eBay as well as the Federal Circuit case of Broadcom v Qualcomm 543 F.3d 683, 703 (Fed. Cir. 2008). This is particularly because patents are unique assets that are difficult to value accurately. Determining patent damages is notoriously challenging due to the speculative nature of hypothetical negotiations and the unpredictable effects of market factors such as different competitors, applications or economic conditions. These factors highlight why there should not be a presumption that non-practicing entities cannot suffer irreparable harm.

Ultimately, an injunction serves to prevent the violation of rights secured by a patent, and should not be punitive or give the patentee undue leverage.
 

UPC

Munich Central Division confirms patent validity in display glass composition dispute. 
[UPC 337/2025]

On 24 February 2026, the Munich Central Division dismissed TCL’s revocation action against Corning’s patent concerning methods for producing alkali free glass for display substrates. These glass sheets are used in Active Matrix Liquid Crystal Display (AMLCD) applications. 

The Court rejected each ground of attack including added matter, insufficiency, lack of novelty and lack inventive step. The main points of interest in this judgment relates to the approach to the disclosure of ranges in a novelty attack and the approach to inventive step.

When construing the claims, the Court emphasised that the skilled person always interprets the features in light of the claim as a whole and would understand there to be important and inherent interdependencies between the various claimed features. The skilled person therefore understood the claim to relate to a specific method for producing glass sheets that required components to be selected, melted and refined such that they were suitable for use in a drawdown process.

The novelty challenges failed because neither of the pieces of prior art disclosed the claimed method in a direct and unambiguous way. Although the first document disclosed a glass composition that fell within the claim, this was not disclosed in the context of a downdraw process for making glass sheets. Although the downdraw process was generally disclosed, the particular composition in question was explicitly described in the context of an experiment where no glass sheets were produced. In addition, elsewhere in the document this composition was described as being unsuitable for a downdraw method. There was therefore no clear and unambiguous disclosure of the combination of features for the use described in the claim.

The second document disclosed a method for production of glasses with component ranges that overlapped partially with or subsumed the claimed component ranges. However, the claimed composition would only be arrived at if the skilled person made a considerable number of choices from multiple broad ranges to select values within the claimed ranges without there being any justification for these choices in the prior art itself. In making this determination, the Court rejected the claimant’s argument, that was said to be based on German case law, that disclosure of a range in document included disclosure of all possible intermediate values within the stated limits and therefore the entire range was disclosed. In the Court’s view, a generic disclosure did not take away the novelty of a specific combination of features.

Turning to the inventive step analysis, the Court applied the approach set out in by the Court of Appeal in Amgen v Sanofi order of 25 November 2025, UPC_CoA_528/2024, UPC_CoA_529/2024, and Meril v Edwards order of 25 November 2025, UPC_CoA_764/2024; UPC_CoA_774/2024. It first identified the objective problem as providing a more environmentally friendly method for manufacturing alkali free glass sheets that were suitable for AMLCD applications, without costly post forming operations. The patent’s solution to this problem was through the combination of the claimed features, i.e. a downdraw process using a specifically designed and interdependent glass composition, which allows fining to take place in the presence of a tin oxide instead of toxic arsenic or antimony components.

The Court then examined several proposed starting points and found that none of these formed the basis of a valid inventive step attack when considered without using hindsight. Although each of the documents contained individual teachings of a number of features present in the claims, there was nothing in the documents to suggest combining the features disclosed and/or adjusting them in such a way as to maintain the required viscosity in the glass, avoid crystallisation and achieve the mechanical properties needed for downdraw. 

When considering one of the inventive step arguments the Court specifically criticised the selection of one out of a number of different examples in the document as the starting point merely because it happened to come closest to the claimed composition. Without any particular direction to do so in the document, this approach in itself was a result of hindsight. In light of the strong interdependencies of the glass components, the Court emphasised that the skilled person could not reasonably expect success when attempting to assemble the claimed combination from disparate prior art disclosures. Each of the pieces of prior art disclosed different components of this claimed combination and none of the documents provided pointers to adapt the disclosed compositions in such a way that would lead to the claimed combination. Against this backdrop the Court found no basis for a reasonable expectation of success.

As none of the attacks succeeded the revocation action was dismissed and TCL was ordered to bear Corning’s costs.
 

UPC

Munich Local Division rejects limits to patent attorneys and experts in confidentiality club. 
[UPC_CFI_609/2025]

On 24 February 2026, in UERAN v Xiaomi, the Munich Local Division (LD) corrected an unopposed clerical omission in its January confidentiality order by adding several missing paragraphs of the Statement of Defence. The more interesting aspects concern the other amendments requested by the defendants that were opposed by the claimant and refused by the Court.

The Court reaffirmed that Art. 48 UPCA gives parties a “fundamental right to freely choose” their representatives and that this choice cannot depend on whether they have a legal or technical background. It emphasised that the competence of patent attorneys is not limited to purely technical matters, meaning the claimant’s patent attorneys could not be excluded from the confidentiality club and prevented from accessing information about the defendant’s negotiations and licence agreements simply for being technically qualified.

The Court also rejected the defendants’ attempt to exclude the claimant’s proposed expert, a Chinese lawyer, from the confidentiality club. In opposing her admission, the defendants had not shown what new confidential licensing information she would obtain. Concerns raised by the defendants about her independence were held to be irrelevant at this stage and “will have to be answered (if necessary) in the context of possible expert evidence.” Exclusion from a confidentiality club is therefore not the appropriate vehicle for testing expert impartiality, and the only issue to determine at this stage was whether there as a legitimate interest in keeping the expert away from certain information.

Overall, the order signals that confidentiality clubs before the UPC will remain tightly confined to genuine confidentiality needs and not extend to strategic attempts to reshape the other party’s team.
 

UPC

Court of Appeal reaffirms requests for public access documents under r. 262.1(b) RoP. 
[UPC_CoA_10/2026, UPC_CoA_9/2026]

On 24 February 2026, the CoA issued two decisions that reinforce the need for precise requests from third parties for public access under r. 62.1(b) RoP. 

The Court emphasised that “a request for written pleadings and evidence must be specified to the greatest extent possible and cannot be made in terms which would require the Court to search and select documents based on relevance criteria set up by the requesting party” (emphasis added). As a result, broad formulations such as a request for “all exhibits” were dismissed in both matters. 

The Court repeated that “reasoned requests for written pleadings and evidence, lodged at the Court of First Instance, shall be made to the relevant Division” and that the same principle applies independently to the CoA. The Court further reminded applicants that the CoA “shall consult the file of the proceedings before the Court of First Instance” without reproducing those documents in its own file, meaning requests must be directed to whichever instance received the document originally. 

In relation to Sumi Agro v Syngenta, the Court accepted the third party's request for the appeal pleadings because the action had concluded. The decision noted that access once a case has ended is usually compatible with the balance of interests, explaining that “these interests are usually properly balanced and duly weighed … if access … is given to a member of the public after the proceedings have come to an end”. The exhibits request was refused because the formulation was “ambiguous” and insufficiently specific. Access was therefore allowed only to the identified pleadings, with personal data to be removed.

In relation to Boehringer v Zentiva, the Court adopted a similar approach. Zentiva had argued that a stricter stance was required because, whilst the appeal case in question had concluded, an underlying merits action was still pending. It argued that, in those circumstances, the protection of the integrity of the case carries “significantly greater weight” and a general interest in UPC transparency cannot displace that concern alone. However, the CoA does not appear to have accepted this reasoning. 

The third party again failed to obtain access to exhibits for lack of specificity, but the Court granted access to certain appeal pleadings in the redacted form submitted by Boehringer. The Court accepted that the passages identified contained “sensitive, non public commercial information relating to Boehringer’s revenues and its detailed litigation costs” that required confidential treatment.
 

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

Episode 35: Paris Central Division finds subsidiary is not the “same party” as its parent company and can start separate proceedings

Episode 36: Court of Appeal confirms no unitary effect without full participating state designation