LD Paris, October 16, 2026, Decision, UPC_CFI_684/2025, UPC_CFI_2279/2025

A realistic starting point must be evaluated as a comprehensive technical disclosure taken as a whole. Selecting an isolated drawing or embodiment merely because it structurally resembles the invention constitutes impermissible hindsight. Because the skilled person lacks inventive imagination, obviousness requires an explicit pointer prompting them to take the next developmental step. Furthermore, a skilled person’s general awareness of neighbouring technical fields does not justify importing features from disparate device classes without a concrete motivating pointer.

Legal framework and precedent applied: Art. 56 EPC; Meril v Edwards (UPC_CoA_464/2024, headnotes 4–13), Amgen v Sanofi (UPC_CoA_528/2024, headnotes 10–22), TCL v Corning (UPC_CFI_337/2025, headnote 1), and Kodak v Fujifilm (UPC_CoA_473/2025, headnote 6).

Claims are interpreted through the patent specification as an autonomous lexicon. Where patent drawings depict a physical feature in a specific anatomical position while applying a broader location label, that contextual teaching governs over narrower external clinical definitions. Furthermore, claim language reciting that an element is “configured to achieve” a stated therapeutic result represents a positive functional limitation, not a non-binding problem statement.

Legal framework applied: Art. 69 EPC; NanoString v 10x Genomics (UPC_CoA_335/2023), VusionGroup v Hanshow (UPC_CoA_1/2024), Hefei v Grundfos (UPC_CoA_622/2025, para. 36), Agfa v Gucci (UPC_CFI_278/2023), and Sodastream v Aarke (UPC_CFI_373/2023).

Enablement requires only that the specification teach the skilled person at least one viable way or technical concept to perform the invention without undue burden. The challenger bears the evidentiary burden and must substantiate serious practical doubts with verifiable facts. An insufficiency attack fails where it relies on an artificial construction requiring an individual feature to achieve the claimed result in isolation, contrary to the cooperative interaction mandated by the claim.

Legal framework and precedent applied: Arts. 83, 138(1)(b) EPC; Amgen v Sanofi (UPC_CoA_528/2024, headnotes 5–6).

Added matter under Article 123(2) EPC is governed by the overarching standard of what the person skilled in the art derives directly and unambiguously from the application as filed as a whole, using common general knowledge. This assessment includes implicitly disclosed subject-matter that is a clear and unambiguous consequence of explicit teachings. Within this framework, an intermediate generalization is unallowable only where an inextricable structural or functional link exists between a feature extracted from an embodiment and omitted features of that embodiment. Limiting an independent claim by specifying that a feature is “single” on one side or “continuous” does not extend beyond the original disclosure if the application as filed directly and unambiguously encompassed variable feature configurations as part of its general teaching, including the figures.

Legal framework and precedent applied: Arts. 123(2), 138(1)(c) EPC; Abbott v Sibio (UPC_CoA_382/2024), Meril v Edwards (UPC_CoA_646/2024), Abbott v Sinocare (UPC_CoA_901/2025), and Sibio v Abbott (UPC_CoA_884/2025, headnote 1).

A claimant asserting patent infringement in non-contracting third countries, such as the UK, bears the mandatory burden of pleading and proving both the underlying commercial acts and the applicable foreign substantive law. Foreign national law cannot be presumed identical to Article 25 UPCA. Failure to substantiate foreign statutes or secondary liability doctrines in the statement of claim results in dismissal on the merits.

Legal framework and precedent applied: Arts. 25, 34 UPCA; Hurom v Nuc (UPC_CoA_678/2025, headnote 3, paras. 99 et seq.).

Direct patent infringement liability across affiliated corporate group entities requires concrete operational involvement, such as operating commercial platforms, managing distribution hubs, importing products, or directing territorial sales. In contrast, a pure financial holding company acting solely as a shareholder incurs no patent infringement liability absent proof of operational participation, instigation, or accessory control.

Legal framework and precedent applied: Art. 25 UPCA; Belkin v Philips (UPC_CoA_534/2024, paras. 190, 198–199) and Align v AngelAlign (UPC_CFI_723/2025, headnote 3).

Permanent injunctions, product recalls, and destruction are the statutory norm upon establishing infringement. In sequential multi-stage therapies, an injunction properly encompasses the complete system where enjoining only individual components would destroy overall therapeutic efficacy. Proportionality is preserved where the patentee carves out treatments already underway and devices already delivered to patients, balancing intellectual property enforcement with patient health.

Legal framework and precedent applied: Arts. 63(1), 64 UPCA; Fujifilm v Kodak (UPC_CoA_473/2025, para. 394).

Post-grant damages must be strictly separated from pre-grant provisional compensation; damages run exclusively from the grant date where provisional compensation is not explicitly claimed, without applying national grace periods. Commercially sensitive accounts may be protected through a confidentiality club and audited by an independent expert. Public dissemination requires exceptional circumstances causing irreparable market harm, and enforcement security is refused where the patentee is demonstrably solvent.

Legal framework and precedent applied: Arts. 32(1)(f), 67, 68, 80, 82 UPCA; Art. 67 EPC; Rules 118, 125, 190, 262, 262A RoP; Fujifilm v Kodak (UPC_CoA_473/2025), Rematec v Europe Forestry (UPC_CoA_302/2025), and Align v AngelAlign (UPC_CFI_723/2025).