Germany: Patent

Subscribe
Intellectual property law and copyright law thought leadership, articles, podcasts, videos and webinars from expert sources across the legal world. Explore insights covering topics such as licensing and syndication, patent law, trade secrets and trademark law.
Article
New EBA Referral G1/26
The Enlarged Board of Appeal will address fundamental questions about how patent claims should be interpreted using the description and drawings, and what this means for assessing whether amendments introduce added subject-matter. Three competing approaches have emerged in Board of Appeal decisions following G 1/24, each leading to different outcomes when determining if claim amendments extend beyond the original application.
Germany IP
CR
Carpmaels & Ransford LLP
Article
CoA, June 2, 2026, Appeal Judgment In Infringement Action And Counterclaim For Revocation, UPC_CoA_312/2025 Et Al
[5] Art. 34 UPCA states that “Decisions of the Court shall cover, in the case of a European patent, the territory of those Contracting Member States for which the European patent has effect”. It is not meant to confine the UPC’s jurisdiction to its own territory. Art. 34 UPCA clarifies that as a rule – unless a more limited scope is requested (cf Art. 43, 76 UPCA) – decisions of the UPC shall cover the territory of all Contracting Member States where a European patent has effect.
Germany IP
BP
Bardehle Pagenberg
Article
G1/26 – A New Enlarged Board Referral Questions Whether Claims Should Be Interpreted Differently When Considering Patentability And Added Subject Matter.
The European Patent Office's Enlarged Board of Appeal faces a new referral, G1/26, questioning how patent claim descriptions should be interpreted when assessing added matter requirements. This follows closely on the heels of G1/24, which addressed claim interpretation for patentability issues, and could fundamentally reshape the EPO's approach to determining whether amendments to patents have proper basis in original applications.
Germany IP
HL
HGF Ltd
Article
CoA, May 27, 2026, Infringement Action, Counterclaim, UPC_CoA_622/2025
The appellant argued at first instance that circulation pumps are typically implemented as centrifugal pumps. On appeal, additional textbook excerpts were submitted to substantiate this point. The Court held this as concretization of already conclusive submissions. In addition, this submission was not contested by the respondent, beyond mere arguing late-filing. Uncontested submissions generally cannot be rejected as late-filed.
Germany IP
BP
Bardehle Pagenberg
See more

Latest Videos

See more