Irides: Weekly global patent litigation update

This edition features updates from: Russia, Argentina, China and the Unified Patent Court (UPC)

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

Russia

Russian Supreme Court reaffirms the Federal Antimonopoly Service powers in “Launch at Risk” unfair competition case. 

On 16 March 2026, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation reinstated a decision of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of Russia (FAS) finding that the launch of a generic product prior to expiry of the relevant Eurasian patent constituted unfair competition, overturning the judgments of the lower Courts.

The Court endorsed the application of the principle of estoppel in this case, holding that the generic company’s behaviour was inconsistent as it simultaneously denied the use of the patented invention to avoid the infringement claim in the proceedings before FAS, while also confirming the use of the same patented invention to seek a compulsory licence in parallel proceedings.

The Court also overturned the lower Courts’ finding that the FAS was required to appoint an independent expert. This requirement led to the unjustified application of a higher standard of proof and is not required in every case; the FAS may rely on regulatory materials and specialist opinions submitted by the patentee when the reliability of this evidence has not been refuted. The Court also adopted a broad interpretation of “competitive relationship” under Russian antimonopoly law, rejecting the lower court finding that it was necessary for the patentee to directly compete with the infringer. It is only necessary to demonstrate harm to the patentee's economic interests. Therefore, a patentee can be a competitor even in circumstances where its product is marketed through local affiliates or distributors. Finally, the Court also upheld FAS’s earlier ruling ordering the disgorgement of revenues obtained from the at-risk launch.
 

Argentina

INPI Aligns Pharmaceutical Patent Examination with International Standards.

On 18 March 2026, the Government of Argentina published Joint Resolution 1/2026 which repealed certain guidelines, in place since 2012, for the examination of patentability of chemical and pharmaceutical inventions. The previous guidelines had restricted the grant of patents for second medical uses, new formulations, polymorphs and combinations of known compounds.

Going forward, patent examination in Argentina will return to a case-by-case assessment of inventive step, novelty, and industrial applicability, without prejudice to the technical field of the invention. Transitional provisions mean that patents granted after entry into force of the Joint Resolution will not prevent continued commercialisation of existing products on the market, nor will compensation be available for such use. 
 

China

China announces withdrawal of anti-suit injunction policy.
[WTO Minutes of Meeting 14 October 2025]

In response to the WTO appeal Arbitrators’ Award (AA) dated 21 July 2025, relating to China’s policy of issuing Anti-Suit Injunctions (ASIs) in Standard Essential Patent (SEP) cases (previously reported here), China has made a statement to the WTO explaining its compliance with the AA. While China emphasised that it considered that the AA was wrong and that the Arbitrators had “somehow lost their way”, it confirmed that the Supreme People's Court of China has now issued a notice stating that the so-called ‘ASI policy’, to the extent it ever existed, has been withdrawn and has no continuing effect upon how Chinese Courts evaluate requests for ASIs in the context of SEP litigation. It also confirmed that it has published online the decision in respect of which the Arbitrators considered a failure to publish was contrary to transparency obligations under the TRIPS Agreement.

The European Union noted that it could not yet take a view on whether China had fully implemented the binding AA and reserved the right to come back to this matter before the WTO.
 

UPC

Hamburg Local Division confirms broad jurisdiction under Art. 4 Brussels Recast in Dyson v Dreame injunction decision.
[UPC_CFI_2255/2025]

On 7 April 2026, the Hamburg Local Division (LD) (Judge Sabine Klepsch presiding) granted Dyson a Preliminary Injunction (PI) against various entities in the Dreame Group in the parties’ ongoing dispute (previously reported here) relating to a patent to an attachment for a hair care device. 

Dyson had sought an PI against five entities associated with the Dreame Group – one based in Hong Kong (Dreame HK), three based in countries which are part of the UPC territory (Dreame EU) and Dreame’s UK distributor (Dreame UK). The panel held that the UPC is a Court of a Member State under Art. 71a and 71b of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (Brussels I Recast (BR), with a territory encompassing all Contracting Member States, and therefore that the UPC has international jurisdiction under Art. 4 BR for every defendant who is based or domiciled within any Contracting Member State of the UPCA. The panel therefore had jurisdiction to hear the case against the Dreame EU defendants.

The panel also held that it had jurisdiction to extend the PI to Spain for Dreame HK and a Dreame entity based in The Netherlands (Dreame NL). The fact that Dreame NL is domiciled within the UPC territory was sufficient connection with the UPC territory to establish jurisdiction, without the need to examine the plausibility of any acts committed by Dreame NL in Spain. Dreame NL was also found to be an anchor defendant, which allowed Dreame HK to be sued in relation to the Spanish part of the patent in suit.

Dyson had also sought to extend the PI to the UK for Dreame NL and Dreame UK. The panel found that it had jurisdiction to hear the case regarding infringement of the UK national part of the patent in respect of Dreame NL, but that there was not a sufficient connection between Dreame NL and Dreame UK for the UPC to establish jurisdiction over Dreame UK. Although Dreame NL was installed as the EU Authorised Representative in Northern Ireland, this was merely for compliance with EU regulations which protected exports between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland to avoid a hard border, it was not sufficiently foreseeable under Art. 8(1) BR that Dreame UK could be sued in the UPC territory.

Following assessment of the validity and infringement of the patent, the panel granted the injunctions requested by Dyson for the UPC territory and Spain, but not the UK. 

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

Episode 45: Court of Appeal confirms that unprotected disclosures cannot later be made confidential and clarifies strict limits on confidentiality under r. 262 and 262A RoP.

Episode 46: Court of Appeal overturns Paris Local Division’s extension of UPC jurisdiction for foreign infringement allegations.