Irides: Weekly global patent litigation update

This edition features updates from: The UK, Australia and the Unified Patent Court (UPC).

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

UK

Patents Court expedites patent pool RAND determination. [Snap v Dolby and Access Advance [2026] EWHC 2757 (Pat)].

On 28 October 2026, the High Court handed down a decision ordering expedition of a first RAND trial in Snap v Dolby and Access Advance. The action relates to the licensing of video codec patents, which are included in Access Advance’s Video Distribution Patent (VDP) Pool, in respect of which Dolby is a licensor. Mr Justice Mellor ordered that a 15-day RAND trial be listed in a window commencing on 1 November 2027. This first trial will broadly determine whether Snap is entitled to a RAND licence and what are the RAND terms for a licence to the VDP Pool covering Dolby's HEVC patents.

Australia

Patent Office applies updated approach in rejecting an unpatentable computer-implemented scheme. [Kyro Card Capital [2026] APO 31].

The Patent Office has rejected an application for a patent relating to a payment-processing system intended to implement purchase rewards without relying on access to conventional point-of-sale systems. As the application related to a computer-implemented invention, the Patent Office applied the updated approach in the Patent Manual of Practice and Procedure, which we reported on in July 2026. The updated approach follows the Full Federal Court's decision in Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Patents [2025] FCAFC 131 which establishes that computer-implemented inventions must be assessed as a whole to determine whether they provide a genuine technical contribution, rather than merely implementing an abstract idea on a computer.

The Patent Office found that the claimed invention was essentially an administrative rearrangement rather than an alteration or improvement to computer technology. Kyro Card Capital proposed claim amendments, but these were not considered patentable either as they related to merely the use of an established computer-security technique within the system rather than an improvement to the system itself. 

UPC

Munich Local Division clarifies approach to Markush formulae and partial priority. [Enanta v Pfizer UPC_CFI_0768/2025, UPC_CFI_1997/2025].

On 29 October 2026, the Munich Local Division (LD) revoked Enanta’s unitary patent EP 4 051 265, which concerned anti-coronavirus agents, and dismissed its infringement action against Pfizer’s PaxlovidTM COVID-19 treatment.

Enanta’s patent claimed priority from a US application filed in July 2020. Although that application contained a Markush formula encompassing the claimed compounds and disclosed the relevant variables individually, the Court held that it did not directly and unambiguously disclose the specific claimed combination of features. In particular, there was no individualised disclosure that specifically combined the relevant subclasses of the Markush formula with X as a cyano group and A as an optionally substituted C1-C8 alkyl group. The Court emphasised that disclosure of a Markush formula does not, in principle, disclose individual compounds or narrower subclasses within the formula and selecting individual elements from separate lists is insufficient unless their particular combination is directly and unambiguously derivable by a person skilled in the art.

Based on this finding, Enanta was not entitled to rely on the 2020 priority date, intervening disclosures became prior art and the claims were anticipated.

The Court also rejected Enanta's attempt to rely on partial priority because it had filed no application to amend. Even where part of a claim enjoys priority, the Court held that a partially valid claim cannot be maintained if no amendment application has been filed.

UPC

The Munich LD considers whether damages can extend beyond the infringing product. [Edwards Lifesciences v Meril UPC_CFI_1160/2026].

The Munich LD has given its first ruling applying the “lay open books” procedure under r. 141 RoP. Following a finding on infringement, Edwards applied for determination of damages and an order under r. 141.

The Court held that r. 141 does not categorically exclude financial information concerning non-infringing products. However, as any order must be proportionate, such disclosure should be limited to information that is necessary for calculating recoverable damages. Considering the principles for calculating damages (Art. 68 UPCA), the Court noted that the damage to be compensated consists of the infringer exploiting opportunities that should have been exclusively reserved for the proprietor. Turnover generated from the infringing device is not the full scope and further profits can be claimed if they are so related that it would be inequitable to allow the infringer to retain them. For the necessary causal link to be present, there has to be an assessment of whether the relevant profits could be reasonably attributed to the characteristics of the infringing item that are associated with the infringed right. This could include ancillary transactions which in themselves were not acts of infringement, e.g., sales of items for use with the infringing device, particularly if the related items were tailored such that the defining features were so closely linked to the infringement that there was an “almost inevitable connection”.

Turning to the case in hand, the Court permitted disclosure relating to profits from accessory products sold alongside infringing devices. However, it held that profits from non-infringing devices lacked a sufficiently close causal connection with infringement, despite the use of the infringing devices in clinical trials, and Edwards’ claim that the CE marks for these products were granted on the basis that no “significant changes” had been made from the infringing product. In rejecting Edwards’ “springboard” argument, the Court concluded that alleged benefits, such as Meril’s distribution network and relationships with cardiologists, must be considered as independent of the limited contribution to the state of the art provided by the invention protected by the patent. However, the sufficient connection was not ruled out for sales of non-infringing devices if the relevant tender process included offering at least one infringing device, as the original tender offer itself constituted an infringing activity.

Meril’s disclosure was therefore limited accordingly. Leave to appeal was granted, this being the UPC’s first “lay open books” order, and the Court confirmed any appeal would have suspensive effect. 

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

Episode 101: Paris Local Division finds Align’s clear-aligner patent valid and infringed.

Episode 102: Court of Appeal rules there is no right to appeal decisions on re-establishment of rights.