Irides: Weekly global patent litigation update

This edition features updates from: The European Patent Office (EPO), the United Kingdom (UK), and the Unified Patent Court (UPC).

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

EPO

EPO publishes G 1/25 on description amendments.
[G 0001/25]

On 3 September 2026, the EPO published its decision in G 1/25 which concerned whether a patentee is obligated to amend the description of a patent where it has amended the claims during the opposition proceedings.

The Enlarged Board of Appeal decided that “If the claims of a European patent, or patent application, are amended during proceedings before the departments of the EPO, or in appeal proceedings, and the amendment introduces an inconsistency between the amended claims and the description, including any drawings, of the patent, or application, and because of that inconsistency Articles 52 to 57, 76(1), 83, 84, 123(2) or 123(3) EPC are not complied with, it is necessary to adapt the description, including any drawings, to the amended claims so as to remove that inconsistency.”

We will consider this decision and its wider impacts in a further article.
 

UK

Patents Court finds Samsung's 5G patent valid, essential and infringed.

[Samsung v ZTE [2026] EWHC 2235 (Pat)]

On 28 August 2026, Mr Justice Mellor (Mellor J) handed down his judgment in Technical Trial A in Samsung v ZTE, upholding Samsung’s EP (UK) 3 934 154.

This decision forms part of a wider, multi-jurisdictional dispute concerning the terms on which Samsung and ZTE should license their respective portfolios of standard-essential patents. Samsung sought, and has now obtained, a determination of FRAND terms and seeks a FRAND injunction. A separate UK FRAND trial had already taken place before Mr Justice Meade, who delivered judgment on 1 May 2026, while Courts in Chongqing and Munich have also ruled on the FRAND aspects of the parties’ dispute. Despite those decisions, no settlement has been reached between the parties.

Samsung contended that this technical trial remained necessary because ZTE had not undertaken to take a FRAND licence. Having upheld the Patent, Mellor J declared it valid, essential and infringed, and found that, in the absence of a FRAND licence, ZTE threatened to continue infringing it.

The consequences of this decision on the relief the UK court will grant will now be decided in a further hearing. 
 

UPC

Düsseldorf Local Division upholds amended patent claim and grants sixth injunction against Disney+ 
[InterDigital v WaltDisney UPC_CFI_297/2025 et al]

On 2 September, the Düsseldorf Local Division handed down its sixth injunction against the US Disney Group defendants (the Defendants) in proceedings relating to European Patent 2 080 349 (EP 349), in force in Germany and the Netherlands.

Although the Court revoked EP 349 as granted, finding that it lacked novelty over two pieces of prior art, claim 1 was upheld in the narrower form of Auxiliary Request K5. The Court held that Disney+ implemented all features of amended claim 1 and that the Defendants indirectly infringed under Art. 26 UPCA by supplying Disney+ in Germany and the Netherlands.

The Court granted a final injunction under Art. 63 UPCA, prohibiting the Defendants from supplying or offering Disney+ in Germany and the Netherlands insofar as it was suitable and intended for putting the patented method into effect. The Court noted that an injunction should ordinarily follow once infringement is established unless there are special reasons not to grant one, including proportionality concerns. No such reasons were presented by the Defendants in this case.

In addition to injunctive relief, the Court ordered extensive information and accounting measures, subject to confidentiality protections. The Court emphasised that these remedies were justified both under Art. 67 UPCA and the broader accounting provisions available for the assessment of damages.

The Defendants also sought to make enforcement of the injunction conditional on the claimant providing security of at least EUR 30 million. The Court refused. While Art. 82(2) UPCA gives the Court discretion to require security, the Defendants had not substantiated either their alleged exposure to EUR 30 million in losses or any concern that damages would be unrecoverable from the claimant if the judgment were later overturned.
 

UPC

The Düsseldorf Local Chamber Clarifies “Double-Flat” Claims and Confirms Intermediary Liability for EU Authorised Representatives.
[Aesculap v Shanghai Bojin Medical UPC_CFI_307/2025]

In a decision that will be of particular interest to medical device manufacturers and their regulatory representatives, the Düsseldorf Local Chamber (LC) considered the scope of liability of an EU authorised representative in proceedings concerning EP 2 892 442, designated in Germany, France and the UK, relating to surgical torque transmitting instruments. The patent proprietor ultimately continued its case only against the German entity acting as the authorised representative for the Chinese manufacturer after settling with the other defendants. The Court found that the accused “Bojin” surgical tools infringed claim 1 of the patent and were suitable for use in an instrument falling within claim 6.

A significant point of interest in the judgment relates to the liability of the second defendant. The Court was not satisfied that the authorised representative had itself imported, distributed or otherwise carried out infringing acts within the meaning of Art. 25 UPCA. Nor did the evidence support liability as a co-perpetrator, instigator or accomplice. The LC nevertheless held that the authorised representative was liable as an “intermediary” under Art. 63(1) UPCA. It reasoned that appointment as an authorised representative under the Medical Devices Regulation was an essential prerequisite for lawful marketing of the products in the EU and that the representative was capable of influencing the infringement by withdrawing its services. The Court therefore granted an injunction preventing the second defendant from providing its authorised representative services in connection with the infringing products and also ordered the provision of information in Germany and France.

The situation was slightly different with regards to the UK. Following the Court of Appeal’s long arm jurisdiction case law, the Court accepted that injunctive relief could extend to the UK, subject to the condition that the UK designation of the patent is not subsequently held invalid by the competent UK Courts. However, because the second defendant was liable solely as an intermediary, the Court limited UK relief to an injunction and declined to grant associated information orders.

The judgment adds to the developing UPC case law on intermediary liability and confirms the willingness of the Court to grant injunctive relief against regulatory actors whose services enable the placing on the market of infringing products, even where those actors are not themselves direct infringers. It also provides further guidance on the UPC’s approach to long arm jurisdiction and cross border remedies involving the UK.
 

UPC

Court of Appeal upholds targeted evidence disclosure under Rule 190.
[Xingi v Avient UPC-COA-76/2026]

On 27 August 2026, the Court of Appeal provided important guidance on the scope of r.190 RoP for the production of evidence. R.190 RoP is not a disclosure tool to be used in fishing expeditions, rather, it should be based on specific and substantiated allegations, directed at evidence that is genuinely necessary to resolve the issues in dispute. It must be proportionate, both in terms of whether the evidence could be obtained through less burdensome means and the burden imposed on the responding party. The Court must also ensure a fair balance between competing rights, including the protection of confidential information, trade secrets and personal data.

Applying those principles to the facts, the Court upheld the order requiring Xingi to produce specific quantities of the fabric samples. Despite Avient being able to obtain limited quantities through commercial channels, these quantities were insufficient to carry out ballistic testing. Since Xingi argued that infringement could only be established by means of ballistic testing, a request for access to material capable of enabling such testing was consistent with the purpose of r. 190 RoP and with the respondent’s position in the infringement proceedings.

The judgment also contains useful procedural guidance. The Court held that neither Art. 59 UPCA nor r.190 RoP requires an evidence application to be filed with the statement of claim. The Court further upheld the requirement that the samples be delivered to the Netherlands, finding that Avient’s application clearly contemplated testing by itself or an independent testing facility and therefore required more than inspection at Xingi’s premises in China.

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

Episode 86: The Hamburg Local Division provides further guidance on the relationship between patent pool and bilateral licensing, implementer willingness, and the scope of the FRAND defence.

Episode 87: Court of Appeal dismisses added matter and inventive step attacks, upholding Abbott’s glucose monitoring patent.