UPC First Instance Division invites case relevant comments following CoA’s definition of mechanism for assessing inventive step

The interim conference of the revocation action between TCL Europe and Corning Inc. (UPC_CFI_337/2025) was held on 28 November 2025. At the conference, the judge-rapporteur issued a unique opportunity for the parties to submit further briefs to present their cases regarding inventive step and sufficiency of the patent in suit. Written submissions after the interim conference are not anticipated in the rules of procedure of the UPC and are consequently extremely rare. 

This notable departure from the frontloaded proceedings was made following the Court of Appeal decisions of 25 November 2025 concerning the litigation in Edwards v Meril and Amgen v Sanofi / Regeneron. In these landmark decisions, handed down almost two and a half years from the Court’s inception, the CoA defined the mechanism based on which the UPC will assess inventive step.   

In the case in question, the JR held that any further submissions by TCL or Corning should solely address the legal implications of the Edwards and Amgen decisions, and that no new facts or technical arguments may be introduced. The fact that this opportunity was given to the parties only three days following the CoA decisions indicates the significant influence that this framework will have on UPC litigation in the future.

Going forwards, it is clear that a new standard for assessing patent validity at the UPC has been established and will be applied at Local and Central Divisions across Europe. Such legal certainty is welcome news for litigants and serves to offer increased clarity on UPC practice after years of evolving case law.