SCOTUS sides with generics makers; first 2026 referral to EPO EBA; IPRED workshop; USPTO SEP examination program; more

1) Premium: Supreme Court holds generics maker Hikma not liable for induced infringement: inducement must be “clear” and “affirmative”

A unanimous Supreme Court says the Federal Circuit has been on the wrong track lately by loosening the standard for induced infringement.

2) Premium: EPO board of appeal refers major claim-construction, added-matter, and referral questions to Enlarged Board of Appeal

A Technical Board of Appeal 3.3.05 has referred fundamental questions on claim interpretation and added matter to the Enlarged Board of Appeal, while also asking whether the EBA’s traditionally restrictive approach to accepting referrals should be reconsidered.

4) Free: IPRED workshop exposes divide over patent injunction reform as professor and EC official favor monitoring UPC case law

A European Parliament workshop on IPRED exposed differing views on patent injunction reform, with some participants advocating legislative intervention and others warning against it before the UPC has developed a more substantial body of case law.

5) Premium: USPTO launches expedited examination pilot aimed at incentivizing small business, research sector participation in standard-setting

While laudable, it isn’t clear that the SPARK Pilot Program can significantly move the needle.

6) Premium but free summary: German innovative strength has significantly weakened due to insufficient investment in R&D, report reveals

China has taken ownership of more than 11,300 patents developed in Germany over the past ​two decades, and that number is likely to keep increasing, according to a study by the ‌German Economic Institute (IW).

7) Free: Podcast: marking UPC’s three-year anniversary with UPC litigator Dr. Wim Maas (Winston Taylor)

In our latest podcast episode, ip fray interviewed Wim Maas, partner and trial attorney at Winston Taylor, who is a very frequent user of the Unified Patent Court.

8) External & free: UPC PMAC report on its opening ceremony

9) Preview: Judge Gilstrap's finding of irreparable harm in Collision v. Samsung was simply legal error

Further analysis of the widely overrated mid-May decision has been performed. An article will explain why the decision is less meaningful than some thought. The "design win" part at the center of the irreparable-harm finding actually had no bearing on access to injunctive relief under eBay factor one.