LD Mannheim, October 23, 2026, Decision on Infringement and conditional CfR, UPC_CFI_706/2025 and UPC_CFI_1816/2025

If a claim defines a parameter step by step and states what the parameter “is”, the claimed values must be met exactly as defined. A measured value cannot be converted to a different reference basis that is customary in the field. The description must always be used as an aid to interpretation, not only to resolve ambiguities. A definition introduced “as used herein” and consistent terminology in the examples and tables confirm that the patent uses its own definition.

It is irrelevant that a parameter is commonly expressed differently in the field if the patent deliberately departs from that approach. The court cited: on the patent as its own lexicon, CoA, Hefei v Grundfos, UPC_CoA_622/2025; on legal certainty in claim construction, CoA, HUROM, UPC_CoA_678/2025, and UPC_CoA_335/2023.

The claim wording distinguished between a basis that is “obtained” according to a Standard and what the parameter “is”. The Standard therefore governs only the measurement basis. The parameter itself is determined by the claim’s own definition. The patent used a term that does not appear in the referenced Standard. This confirms that the patent sets its own approach rather than adopting the Standard’s terminology.

Standards that are mentioned neither in the claims nor in the description are, as a rule, not relevant for claim construction. Moreover, a fixed parameter in the claim cannot be aligned with a standard whose parameters vary with other properties.

The Defendants made the counterclaim conditional on a finding of infringement at the oral hearing. This was admissible under Rule 263.3 RoP, applied by analogy (CoA, AorticLab v Emboline, UPC_CoA_40/2026). The Claimant did not object.

The Court dismissed the Infringement action. Consequently, the Court did not decide on the validity attacks, the Claimant’s application to amend the patent, the request to disregard Defendants’ Rejoinder as late-filed or whether Defendants failed to submit material on the alleged prior public use.

A conditional counterclaim is a direct consequence of the infringement action. Under the UPCA and the RoP, a defendant can only rely on invalidity by filing a counterclaim for revocation. The conditional counterclaim allows the defendant to rank its defences. It also benefits the claimant, whose patent is not put at risk of revocation with erga omnes effect. The parties must still fully brief the conditional counterclaim. Its costs are therefore not “unnecessary” within the meaning of Art. 69(3) UPCA. The Court expressly departed from LD Munich, decision of 13 January 2026, and agreed with LD Paris, UPC_CFI_301/2025.

These principles apply at least where the condition is declared from the outset, or at the latest at the oral hearing before the counterclaim is discussed in substance. The Court left open whether a defendant should bear costs if it declares the condition only after the Court has expressed a preliminary view.

The Claimant was ordered to pay the costs agreed between the parties of EUR 1.1 million. The value in dispute was set at EUR 15,000,000 for the infringement action and EUR 15,000,000 for the counterclaim.