Candice Dupin

AD Article

InterDigital v Amazon: The UPC pushback against ASI-Equivalent interim licensing in a post-Brexit landscape

In a post-Brexit context falling outside the scope of EU Regulation No 1215/2012 (Brussels I bis), the Local Division of Mannheim the UPC, in its Order of 22 December 2025 (UPC_CFI_936/2025), confirmed in full its ex parte order of 30 September 2025, rejecting Amazon’s application for review.

AD Article

Warning letters and disparagement: a recent Supreme Court ruling on copyright and its potential repercussions on patent law

In its decision of 15 October 2025 (Cass. Com. No. 24-11.150), the French Supreme Court adopted a particularly strict approach to disparagement. It held that, in the absence of a court ruling establishing copyright infringement, merely informing third parties of a possible infringement constitutes an act of disparagement under Article 1240 of the French Civil Code. The ruling, issued in a copyright dispute, sanctions the sending of warning letters to third parties — such as resellers — prior to any judicial finding of infringement, regardless of the measured tone of the communication. According to the Court, referring to a potential infringement alone is sufficient to characterise disparagement, particularly where the communication goes beyond what is strictly necessary or is sent to multiple recipients. Although the decision concerns copyright law, it raises significant questions for patent litigation. Under French law, Article L. 615-1(3) of the Intellectual Property Code may require prior notice to certain non-manufacturing parties in order to establish liability, which can justify informing customers or distributors. However, the Supreme Court reiterates that such information must be strictly limited, proportionate and carefully drafted, without threatening, excessive or one-sided language. Recent case law in patent matters — including disputes relating to standard essential patents and proceedings before the Unified Patent Court (UPC) — confirms that premature or insufficiently contextualised communications (whether warning letters or press releases) presenting a competitor as a potential infringer may constitute disparagement. In a context where prior notice is no longer required to bring infringement actions before the UPC, this decision further reinforces the duty of caution. Any communication addressed to third parties before a judicial finding of infringement must be objectively necessary and narrowly framed, failing which the rights holder may incur liability for disparagement.