How to bring industrial relations into line with the EU’s Artificial Intelligence Regulation? | El Confidencial

In Judgment no. 519/2025 of 1 April, the Supreme Court tackles the treatment to be given within insolvency proceedings to a claim acknowledged by way of court-ordered clawback (avoidance) prior to court approval of a composition.

The newsletter covers the main developments in Pharma & Healthcare legislation and case law.

Royal Decree-law 7/2025 introduces new regulations which modify and extend the milestone system applied in the processing of renewable energy generation projects

Royal Decree-law 7/2025 introduces regulatory changes to the processing and deployment of electricity storage projects

Although Article 204(3)(d) places them on the same level, the erroneous counting of votes and the counting of invalid votes are very different, given that the latter requires judicial balancing.

The Unified Patent Court has jurisdiction, in certain cases and within the limits set by the Brussels Ia Regulation and the Lugano Convention, to hear actions relating to classic European patents validated in States that are not party to the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court. Such decisions may be recognised and enforced in those other countries, but there are cases in which such recognition and enforcement will not be appropriate.

The Unified Patent Court has jurisdiction, in certain cases and within the limits laid down in the Brussels Ia Regulation and the Lugano Convention, to hear actions relating to classic European patents validated in States that are not contracting parties to the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court. However, this does not mean that, when hearing such actions, the Court may apply the same rules as if the actions related to a unitary patent.

This document sets out and criticises the doctrine established by the CJEU in its Judgment of 25 February 2025, C-339/22, BSH/Electrolux, ECLI:EU:C:2025:108. Although the dispute underlying the judgment was not brought before the UPC, the interpretation of the CJEU in the BSH/Electrolux judgment is equally applicable, since said court is equivalent to the national courts of the contracting states party to the UPC Agreement.

Ever since coming into operation, there has been a tendency on the part of the Unified Patent Court to extend its jurisdiction to include patents that produce effects in States that are not party to the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court (the ‘UPC Agreement’ or ‘Agreement’), as is the case of the Kingdom of Spain. This phenomenon is known in specialised circles as the court's ‘long arm’. However, although in certain cases the Unified Patent Court (the ‘UPC’ or ‘Court’) does indeed have such jurisdiction, this is only possible within strict limits, limits that do not seem to be taken into consideration in a consistent manner.