HOFFMANN EITLE Quarterly Newsletter 03/26
Publication | 18.03.2026
Dear Colleagues and Friends,
We are pleased to present the first issue of the Hoffmann Eitle Quarterly for 2026.
Our first article compares the approaches taken by the EPO and the UPC to the impact of clinical trial disclosures on the assessment of inventive step. The second article analyses the UK Supreme Court's landmark Emotional Perception decision, which largely aligns the UK's patent eligibility framework with EPO practice. We then review two important referrals to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) concerning the meaning of "first marketing authorisation" and "new product" under the SPC Regulation.
The fourth article outlines China's new dual filing system for utility models and patents and compares these developments with selected European practices. Next, we highlight Hoffmann Eitle's contributions to the development of case law before the EPO and national courts in 2025. The sixth article examines a notable ruling from an Italian court on the competence of national courts over European patents that have not been opted out, and its effect on UPC litigation strategies. Finally, we continue our ongoing series on substantive UPC law by reviewing recent developments in UPC case law, and how they compare with the approaches of the EPO and national courts.
As always, we hope you find this issue informative and welcome your feedback.
Nicolas Douxchamps
Editor-in-chief of the Hoffmann Eitle Quarterly
Partner - Belgian and European Patent Attorney
HE Electrical Engineering & Digital Technologies Practice Group
Hoffmann Eitle Quarterly
Cabazitaxel: Divergent EPO and UPC Rulings on Inventive Step After Clinical Trial Disclosure
Second medical use patents are among the most valuable IP assets in the pharmaceutical sector. Covering new therapeutic indications, patient (sub)groups, or combination treatments, they are often the only means of extending protection beyond the expiry of basic compound patents, SPCs, and regulatory exclusivities. Unsurprisingly, they are frequently the subject of intense disputes.
Link to the article
An End to Aerotel: Emotional Perception at the UK Supreme Court
The landmark UK Supreme Court decision in Emotional Perception fundamentally reshapes how computer-implemented inventions are examined in the UK by harmonizing British law with the EPO. The UK has abandoned the Aerotel four-step eligibility test in favour of the EPO's established "any hardware" approach.
Link to the article
CJEU to Clarify the Meaning of "First Marketing Authorisation" and "New Product"
Supplementary protection certificates are granted in the European Economic Area to compensate for the loss of effective patent protection for new human and veterinary medicinal products caused by the lengthy regulatory approval process. By extending protection for up to five years after expiry of the patent, the legislator seeks to ensure that the holder of both a patent and an SPC can enjoy an overall maximum of 15 years of exclusivity from the date that the first Market Authorisation has been obtained for the medicinal product in question.
Link to the article
Two Rights, One Invention - Utility Models and Patents in China and Europe
As a result of recent changes in Chinese practice, applicants who wish to file both a utility model application and an invention application in China for the same "invention-creation" must now make a choice upon filing that has ramifications for the claim scopes that may be granted later on. Other jurisdictions, such as France, Germany, Spain, and Italy, apply different rules regarding how "double patenting" is treated between utility models and patent applications - there is no uniform approach.
Link to the article
Hoffmann Eitle's Significant Contributions to the Development of European Case Law in 2025
Attorneys at Hoffmann Eitle are at the forefront of European intellectual property law. In 2025, we once again contributed to several noteworthy developments in case law through our work on behalf of clients.
Link to the article
When No Opt-Out Means No Choice: The Venice Interpretation
The Court of Venice recently issued a decision holding that the UPC would have exclusive jurisdiction over classical European patents during the transitional period unless the patent has been opted out, rejecting a widely accepted interpretation of Article 83 UPCA.
Link to the article
UPC Substantive Law - Comparisons With the EPO and National Courts
Link to the article
Should you have any questions or need more information, please do not hesitate to contact us.
With best regards,
HOFFMANN EITLE