LD Mannheim, October 20, 2026, infringement action, counterclaim for revocation, UPC_CFI_481/2025, UPC_CFI_1358/2025

While identical terms in a patent claim regularly are to be understood in the same way, a different context may lead to the result that an identical term may have different meanings in the patent claim depending on its context.

The term “quantity” appeared twice in the asserted claim, and the Court gave it two different meanings. Where it referred to the feedback bits to be determined, it meant a mere number. Where it referred to configured time units, it covered both a number and a set including positional information, because the claimed teaching only works if those positions are known. The description used the term in both senses, which confirmed this reading. The Court also presumed that every claim feature has technical significance unless there is a pointer to the contrary.

Legal framework: NanoString v 10x Genomics (UPC_CoA_335/2023, headnote 2); headnote 1 of the decision

The subject-matter of the granted patent claim must be directly and unambiguously apparent from the content of the priority application, without prior knowledge of the granted patent claim.

It is not sufficient that the skilled person having the granted patent claim in mind might recognize elements of the granted patent claim in the priority application and assign them accordingly to features of the granted patent. In other words: it is not sufficient, that one could understand elements form the description of the priority application as having the meaning of features of the granted patent claim.

Legal framework: Kodak v Fujifilm (UPC_CoA_312/2025, para. 97); Amgen v Sanofi (UPC_CoA_528/2024 & 529/2024, paras. 53 et seq.); Abbott v Sibio (UPC_CoA_382/2024, para. 52); CL Europe v Corning (UPC_CFI_337/2026, para. 41); headnote 2 of the decision

The fact that documents are cross-referenced does not suffice to prove that they form a single disclosure. However, where there is a specific reference in one prior art document (primary document) to a second prior art document (secondary document), when construing the primary document e.g. to give the meaning of a term, such specific reference can result in that the meaning of the term in the secondary document be considered as part of the disclosure of the primary document.

A skilled person reading a 3GPP physical-layer specification would necessarily consult the referenced RRC specification for the parameters used there. Both documents therefore formed one source of disclosure.

Legal framework: Art. 54 EPC, T 0153/85