Insights

Enanta Pharmaceuticals told the US Securities and Exchange Commission in a Form 8-K filed on 29 October that the Unified Patent Court (UPC) had released a decision that day holding its European Patent EP 4 051 265 invalid. In light of that finding, the court also held Enanta's infringement action against Pfizer's Paxlovid (nirmatrelvir tablets; ritonavir tablets) unfounded. The action covered the 18 EU member states that take part in the UPC.

On 30 October the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a USD 9,151,133 attorney-fee award that the District of Delaware had granted to Elysium Health under 35 U.S.C. § 285 in ChromaDex v. Elysium (No. 2025-1227). The panel held that ChromaDex's losing patent-eligibility position was not exceptionally meritless, so the case was not "exceptional". The decision is nonprecedential and deals only with fees: the claims already held ineligible stay invalid.

The UK Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) opened an investigation into Meta on 30 October under Chapter II of the Competition Act 1998. It will examine whether Meta's commercial terms for businesses abuse a dominant position. The worry is that the terms could let Meta collect content from the websites of news publishers and other businesses that use its services, and use it to build its own products and services, including AI features, without those businesses having a say on whether or how their content is used.

The most painful trademark squatting cases in China are rarely filed by strangers. They are filed by the people a foreign brand worked with: the distributor that sold its products, the agent that represented it, the factory that made its goods, or a former employee. Chinese trademark law has a specific rule for this, Article 15 of the current Trademark Law (2019 amendment). It is easier to use than a general bad-faith argument, because the key question is the relationship between you and the filer, not what the filer intended. This guide explains when Article 15 applies, how to oppose or invalidate the filing, what evidence to gather and how to prevent it. It sets out general rules; a specific case needs professional advice.

On 30 October the UK Intellectual Property Office published a guide for beauty salons, practitioners and retailers on how to avoid fake beauty products and report sellers (news). It is written for buyers: buy from trusted channels, check the seller, inspect packaging and batch details, and report fakes. Read the other way round, it is a checklist for brand owners, and the same logic applies in China, one of the world's largest beauty markets. This guide sets out what a foreign beauty brand should put in place in China so that genuine products are easy to verify and fakes are easy to act against. It is general information; a specific case needs professional advice.

The China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) published its Patent and Trademark Examination Plan for the 15th Five-Year Plan period on 3 November; the notice issuing it is dated 19 October. Covering 2026 to 2030, the plan aims for a "world-class" patent and trademark examination authority by 2030. It is a work plan rather than a rule change: most items are framed as matters to study, explore or improve, and binding changes will come only through later amendments to the Patent Examination Guidelines, regulations or guidance. The published notice is marked as abridged.