2025 was an immensely busy year for the UPC and saw key additions to the case law of the developing Court, helping to define its remit and approach to evidence and process.
As we progress through 2026 at the UPC, we look back on four of perhaps the most important, precedent-setting developments from the UPC in 2025 below.
The UPCs widening jurisdiction over European patents
In Fujifilm vs Kodak (Germany and the UK – EP 3 594 009 B1) and, further, in the case of Mul-T-Lock France & Mul-T-Lock Suisse vs. IMC Creations (UPC_CFI_702/2024), Local Divisions of the UPC set precedent for the Court’s ‘long arm’ jurisdiction. First, the Düsseldorf Local Division held that the UPC has jurisdiction to hear an infringement action in respect of a United Kingdom part of a European where the defendant is domiciled in a Contracting Member State, for example Germany. This is despite the United Kingdom being outside the EU and not a Contracting Member State of the UPC. Later, the Paris Local Division confirmed that where a defendant is domiciled in the EU the UPC is competent to decide on infringement for all parts of a European patent. This includes non-UPC states such as Spain and non-EU states such as Switzerland and the UK. In addition, while the Court confirmed that it could not legally revoke a European patent in a ‘third-state’ – such as the UK – it held that it can decide on the validity of the European patent in ‘third-states’ with binding effect for the parties involved in the UPC action.
Will the UPC guide the EPO when it comes to description amendments?
The UPC issued a couple of Decisions in 2025 that suggest the Enlarged Board may decide G 1/25 in a way that allows the European Patent Office to continue its current practice. Namely, that the European Patent Office will, in most cases, request amendments to the description in light of amendments to the claims. In addition, we may see more pressure to delete embodiments from the description that are no longer within the scope of the claims. As reported here, the Board’s preliminary opinion has now issued, suggesting that we can expect a decision endorsing this practice, supporting harmonisation between the UPC and EPO.
Is plastic equivalent to metal? The doctrine of equivalents at the UPC
Washtower vs BEGA (UPC_CFI_479/2025) gave further insight into how the UPC will apply the doctrine of equivalents. The UPC issued a preliminary injunction based on their assessment that it is more likely than not that the patent would be found to be infringed under the doctrine of equivalents. The patent requires “an L-shaped metal strip”, while the Defendant’s cabinets have strips made of plastic. Interestingly, in this case, both parties based their arguments on test for equivalence set out previously in Plant-e v. Arkyne (UPC_CFI_239/2023). However, the Court of Appeal has yet to provide a judgement based on equivalence.
A ‘holistic’ approach to inventive step
Meril Life Sciences Private Ltd., Meril GmbH and Meril Italy S.r.l. vs Edwards Lifesciences Corporation (UPC_CFI_189/2024 + UPC_CFI_434/2024) provided further guidance on the UPC’s approach to the assessment of inventive step. As well as confirming the use of the same general ‘problem and solution’ approach of the EPO, the Court commented in particular on the identification of what can constitute realistic starting points for the assessment. Overall, the approach of the Court to inventive step was in line with expectations based on the case law of the EPO. Reference to a ‘more appropriate’ holistic approach may need to be clarified, but for now this does not seem to be indicating any substantial departure in the assessment of inventive step – though this could be developed further in case law in 2026.
You can keep up to date with the latest from Boult’s UPC experts here.
