| Page 64 | Kisaco Research

As the UPC continues to take shape through early rulings, procedural clarifications, and appeals, legal teams across Europe are watching closely to understand how this new venue is redefining enforcement strategy. This session offers a practical review of the key decisions to date, considers procedural and jurisdictional trends, and examines the strategic calculus of litigating in the UPC versus national courts.


• Review recent UPC case law and appeals to understand emerging judicial approaches and procedural norms:
- Edwards Lifesciences v Meril (2025)
- Mul-T-Lock v IMC Créations (2025)
- Abbott Diabetes Care v Sibio Technology (2025)
• Examine strategic decision-making: when and why companies are choosing the UPC over national courts. Compare early UPC developments to UK patent litigation to identify points of convergence and divergence.

As the UPC continues to take shape through early rulings, procedural clarifications, and appeals, legal teams across Europe are watching closely to understand how this new venue is redefining enforcement strategy. This session offers a practical review of the key decisions to date, considers procedural and jurisdictional trends, and examines the strategic calculus of litigating in the UPC versus national courts.


• Review recent UPC case law and appeals to understand emerging judicial approaches and procedural norms:
- Edwards Lifesciences v Meril (2025)
- Mul-T-Lock v IMC Créations (2025)
- Abbott Diabetes Care v Sibio Technology (2025)
• Examine strategic decision-making: when and why companies are choosing the UPC over national courts. Compare early UPC developments to UK patent litigation to identify points of convergence and divergence.

Author:

Florian Muller

Founder
IP Fray

Florian Muller

Founder
IP Fray

Author:

Tjibbe Douma

Partner
Bird & Bird

Tjibbe Douma

Partner
Bird & Bird

Author:

Raquel Frisardi

Senior Corporate Counsel
Novo Nordisk

Raquel Frisardi

Senior Corporate Counsel
Novo Nordisk

With the UPC issuing an increasing number of rulings, its developing case law on injunctions is critical for shaping enforcement strategies. For IP counsel and litigators, understanding how and when the UPC is willing to grant or deny injunctions - whether preliminary or permanent - is essential for advising clients, managing litigation risk, and crafting effective pan-European strategies.


• Review Grundfos v. Canned Motor Pump (Düsseldorf LD), where the court issued a permanent injunction despite ongoing licensing talks and clarified that lack of inventive step must be explicitly argued - not merely referenced via prior art.
• Analyse Boehringer v. Zentiva (Lisbon LD), in which the court denied provisional measures due to lack of proof of imminent infringement, offering key insights into evidentiary thresholds at the UPC.
• Understand the Milan LD’s approach to litigation costs in Ericsson v. Digital River and Oerlikon v. Bhagat, highlighting how procedural context and case complexity affect fee shifting.
• Discuss how this growing body of UPC injunction case law is influencing strategic decision-making across industries and jurisdictions.

Author:

Ewan Nettleton

Principal IP Counsel- Oncology Litigation
Novartis

Ewan Nettleton

Principal IP Counsel- Oncology Litigation
Novartis

Author:

Matthew Naylor

Partner
Mewburn Ellis

Matthew Naylor

Partner
Mewburn Ellis

Author:

Tobias Wuttke

Partner
Bardehle Pagenberg

Tobias Wuttke

Partner
Bardehle Pagenberg

Author:

Charles Tuffreau

Partner
A&O Shearman

Charles Tuffreau

Partner
A&O Shearman

Author:

Eelco Bergsma

Director- Assertion
Ericsson

Eelco Bergsma

Director- Assertion
Ericsson
 

Peter Blok

Honourable Judge
UPC Court of Appeal

Peter Blok

Honourable Judge
UPC Court of Appeal

Peter Blok

Honourable Judge
UPC Court of Appeal
 

Kai Harmänd

Honourable Judge
UPC Court of First Instance

Kai Harmänd

Honourable Judge
UPC Court of First Instance

Kai Harmänd

Honourable Judge
UPC Court of First Instance
 

James Tomko

SVP, Digital Infrastructure
Zayo

James Tomko is SVP, Digital Infrastrcuture at Zayo.

James has held various roles over his 36 years in telecommunications.  His extensive background across Product Development, Business Development, and Wholesale & Enterprise Sales has equipped him with deep technical expertise.  Currently, he leads Zayo's Digital Infrastructure sales division focused on AI, SaaS, Gaming, data centers, and media companies. 


James holds a Bachelor of Science in Economics from Bethany College and an MBA from Marymount University. He resides in Atlanta, GA.

James Tomko

SVP, Digital Infrastructure
Zayo

James Tomko

SVP, Digital Infrastructure
Zayo

James Tomko is SVP, Digital Infrastrcuture at Zayo.

James has held various roles over his 36 years in telecommunications.  His extensive background across Product Development, Business Development, and Wholesale & Enterprise Sales has equipped him with deep technical expertise.  Currently, he leads Zayo's Digital Infrastructure sales division focused on AI, SaaS, Gaming, data centers, and media companies. 


James holds a Bachelor of Science in Economics from Bethany College and an MBA from Marymount University. He resides in Atlanta, GA.

Join an exclusive panel featuring esteemed judges from the UPC, whose decisions are shaping the future of patent litigation across Europe. This prestigious session offers a rar opportunity to gain invaluable insights into the judicial mindset and decision-making processes at one of the most important new patent courts globally. Don’t miss this chance to engage with the very authorities defining the UPC’s jurisprudence and influencing litigation strategies across industries.

Author:

Emmanuel Gougé

Honourable Judge
UPC Court of Appeal

Emmanuel Gougé

Honourable Judge
UPC Court of Appeal

Author:

Kai Harmänd

Honourable Judge
UPC Court of First Instance

Kai Harmänd

Honourable Judge
UPC Court of First Instance

Author:

Peter Blok

Honourable Judge
UPC Court of Appeal

Peter Blok

Honourable Judge
UPC Court of Appeal

Author:

Antje Brambrink

Partner
Finnegan

Dr. Antje Brambrink is qualified and admitted as an attorney at law in Germany. She advises and represents clients in complex patent disputes on all IP-related matters, often at the interface of antitrust and regulatory laws. Her expertise covers various fields of technology with a focus on pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, med-tech, as well as renewable energies and high-tech. Our clients appreciate Antje’s deep understanding of the life sciences sector based on her dual qualification as a licensed dentist.

 

As a patent litigator, Antje represents clients in infringement, preliminary injunction and inspection proceedings before German district and appeal courts as well as in nullity and compulsory license proceedings at the German Federal Patent Court and the Federal Supreme Court.

 

In addition to her work as a litigator, Antje advises clients strategically on all issues relating to intellectual property rights (patents, utility models, supplementary protection certificates), such as contracts for the licensing and transfer of rights also in connection with international transactions or the newly established Unified Patent Court (UPC). She has extensive experience in the European coordination of multinational patent disputes.

 

Prior to joining Finnegan, Antje practiced patent litigation for several years in the patent litigation teams of two international law firms seated in Germany. Antje’s medical and scientific background is of great benefit in advising clients from the life sciences sector. Renowned pharmaceutical, biotechnology and medical devices companies regularly seek her advice. She also advises in the field of renewable energies and in the enforcement of standard-essential patents.

Antje Brambrink

Partner
Finnegan

Dr. Antje Brambrink is qualified and admitted as an attorney at law in Germany. She advises and represents clients in complex patent disputes on all IP-related matters, often at the interface of antitrust and regulatory laws. Her expertise covers various fields of technology with a focus on pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, med-tech, as well as renewable energies and high-tech. Our clients appreciate Antje’s deep understanding of the life sciences sector based on her dual qualification as a licensed dentist.

 

As a patent litigator, Antje represents clients in infringement, preliminary injunction and inspection proceedings before German district and appeal courts as well as in nullity and compulsory license proceedings at the German Federal Patent Court and the Federal Supreme Court.

 

In addition to her work as a litigator, Antje advises clients strategically on all issues relating to intellectual property rights (patents, utility models, supplementary protection certificates), such as contracts for the licensing and transfer of rights also in connection with international transactions or the newly established Unified Patent Court (UPC). She has extensive experience in the European coordination of multinational patent disputes.

 

Prior to joining Finnegan, Antje practiced patent litigation for several years in the patent litigation teams of two international law firms seated in Germany. Antje’s medical and scientific background is of great benefit in advising clients from the life sciences sector. Renowned pharmaceutical, biotechnology and medical devices companies regularly seek her advice. She also advises in the field of renewable energies and in the enforcement of standard-essential patents.

 

Emmanuel Gougé

Honourable Judge
UPC Court of Appeal

Emmanuel Gougé

Honourable Judge
UPC Court of Appeal

Emmanuel Gougé

Honourable Judge
UPC Court of Appeal
 

Emmanuel Gougé

Judge
UPC Court of Appeal

Emmanuel Gougé

Judge
UPC Court of Appeal

Emmanuel Gougé

Judge
UPC Court of Appeal

This session examines how the UPC’s evolving case law on equivalence compares with national practices in jurisdictions such as the UK, Germany, and Brazil. With recent UPC decisions applying the four-prong test to life sciences disputes, panellists will assess whether the doctrine is delivering legal certainty while ensuring fair protection for patentees.

• Analyse how recent UPC rulings apply the doctrine of equivalents and compare with approaches in the UK, Germany, and Brazil.
• Are the four key UPC questions workable in practice, especially in the life sciences context?
• Evaluate the balance between legal certainty for third parties and fair protection for patent holders under the UPC system.

Author:

Viviane Kunisawa

Partner
Daniel Law

Viviane Kunisawa

Partner
Daniel Law

Author:

Liz Cohen

Partner
Bristows

Liz Cohen

Partner
Bristows

Author:

Julia Schönbohm

Partner
Linklaters

Julia Schönbohm

Partner
Linklaters