Irides: Weekly global patent litigation update

This edition features updates from: The European Commission, New Zealand and the Unified Patent Court (UPC).

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

STOP PRESS: UPC

SOPHiA GENETICS successfully defends provisional measure application in Court of Appeal.
[Guardant v SOPHiA UPC_CoA_19/2026] 

In a Decision of 2 July 2026, the Court of Appeal (CoA) rejected a Preliminary Injunction (PI) application brought by Guardant Health against SOPHiA Genetics. SOPHiA had successfully defended against an application for a PI at first instance in relation to four complex patents relating to liquid biopsy and cancer diagnostics technology in the field of data-driven medicine. Guardant's appeal concerned only one of the original four patents.

Of particular note is the CoA’s findings on a lack of urgency, one of the key requirements for PI proceedings at the UPC. The CoA overturned this part of the first instance decision, and the decision provides important new guidance on when a patentee is deemed to have sufficient knowledge to seek provisional measures and the extent of the diligence expected once potential infringement comes to light.

The decision is therefore likely to become an important reference point in future UPC proceedings for preliminary injunction applications.

A more detailed summary and analysis will follow next week.
 

EU

European Commission opens investigation into Sanofi for alleged abuse of dominant position in flu‑vaccine markets.
[European Commission - Press release]

The European Commission has opened a formal investigation into possible anticompetitive conduct by Sanofi regarding the promotion of an enhanced flu vaccine for vulnerable patients.

Sanofi’s flu vaccine “Efluelda”, which is specifically designed to provide greater protection for people over 60 years of age, competes in the EU with another enhanced flu vaccine “Fluad” marketed by CSL Seqirus. The Commission’s investigation will focus on whether Sanofi has abused its dominant position in Germany and France, by having carried out a misleading communication campaign, primarily targeted at healthcare professionals in these countries, which disparaged Fluad and portrayed it as being inferior to Efluelda. The Commission is especially concerned about whether Sanofi has made claims suggesting that the evidentiary basis for Fluad is weaker than for Efluelda (contradicting the findings of national immunisation advisory groups in Germany and France) and that it has made misleading and/or inaccurate representations of national vaccination recommendations. Such conduct, if proven, could constitute an abuse under Art. 102 TFEU, which prohibits dominant companies from engaging in practices that distort competition. Sanofi has been given the opportunity to respond to the Commission’s concerns and no findings have been made at this stage.
 

New Zealand

Parliament passes amendment to the Patents Act 2013 strengthening rules on Legacy Divisional Patents. [Patents Amendment Bill | New Zealand Legislation]

On 2 June 2026, New Zealand’s Parliament passed an amendment to the Patents Act 2013, which brings divisional applications filed under the “old” Patents Act 1953 into alignment with the patentability requirements of the “new” Patents Act 2013. Previously, patent applications and any related divisional applications filed under the 1953 Act were examined according to lower standards of patentability. Further, because there was no time limit on filing these divisionals, applicants were able to “daisy-chain” successive divisional applications indefinitely. The amendment seeks to remedy this as in future, any new divisional applications derived from 1953 Act filings will be assessed on the balance of probabilities and subjected to the more stringent 2013 Act standards of novelty, inventive step and sufficiency of disclosure. These stricter standards will also apply in any opposition, revocation, or re-examination proceedings relating to such divisional applications.
 

UPC

Court of Appeal Confirms Test for Removing a Patent Opt-Out. 
[SILIMED UPC_CoA_066/2026]

On 29 June 2026, the CoA rejected SILIMED’s application for review of the Registrar’s refusal to remove Polytech’s 30 March 2023 opt-out of EP 2 581 193 (EP 193).

EP 193 was initially granted to Polytech. However, SILIMED was successful in German non-entitlement proceedings seeking the transfer and consent to the re-registration of all national parts of EP 193.

On this basis, before the Court, SILIMED argued that Polytech had never been entitled to the patent and therefore lacked authority to file the opt-out. The Court held that, under r. 5A RoP, an applicant seeking removal of an unauthorised opt-out must show either that the opt-out filer was not the registered proprietor at the time of filing, or that it was not entitled under the relevant national laws to be registered as proprietor.

SILIMED failed to demonstrate either point. The key determination in this case was that the German entitlement decision did not have retroactive effect. Accordingly, under the rebuttable presumption in r. 8.5 RoP, Polytech was treated as authorised to opt-out the patent in March 2023 and the review application was dismissed.

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

Episode 68: Mannheim Local Division grants injunction against Disney in respect of InterDigital’s video streaming patent

Episode 69: Court of Appeal confirms Local Divisions’ discretion in value in dispute assessments