European Patents – do applicants have to amend the description to match the allowed claims? Finally there is a referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal (G1/25) to sort out this conflict between the EPO guidance and the Board of Appeal.
The Unified Patent Court (UPC) Court of Appeal decided in XSYS v Esko (UPC_CoA_156/2025) that the UPC has jurisdiction over alleged patent infringements that occurred before the UPC Agreement entered into force (1 June 2023) and even during periods when a European patent was opted-out, provided the opt-out is later withdrawn. IPKat
The European Commission has confirmed the official withdrawal of legislative draft proposals that would have increased EU regulatory oversight over both standard-essential patent (SEP) licensing and civil liability of artificial intelligence (AI) products and services.
The Tokyo District Court granted its first injunction (against Google’s Pixel 7) for SEP infringement in the Pantech v Google case, a landmark decision with implications for licensing practices and future litigation.
The Trump administration is reportedly considering a “patent tax” that would replace the current flat-fee maintenance structure with a percentage-based tax on patent value (between 1% and 5% annually). This potential shift, could significantly increase costs for certain patent holders and make the US an anomaly among major patent systems.
The USPTO’s denial of inter partes review (IPR) petitions under “settled expectations” doctrine extends to patents in force for only six years.
Rubik’s Cube owner (Spin Master Toys), loses 3D trade marks in dispute at the EU General Court as they cover functional features of the product (Spin Master Toys UK v. EUIPO – Verdes Innovations).