LD The Hague, November 10, 2026, Decision of the Court of First Instance, UPC_CFI_620/2025, UPC_CFI_1509/2025, UPC_CFI_1511/2025

Headnote 2. The claimed range of pKa 5.0-6.8 is not to be interpreted as containing rigid cut-off limits in the present case. The claim, which includes a specific measurement method, should be read together with the description which contains a reference to a measurement imprecision for this method of +/-0.2 pKa units.

Features mentioned in a prior art document can only be used for novelty objections if their combination was originally disclosed. Same standard as applied to clear and unambiguos disclosure for claim amendments.

Corresponding headnote: 5. For the assessment of novelty, the claims of a prior art patent or patent application form an integral part of its technical disclosure and must be read together with the description. This does however not mean that any combination of (features from) claims of a prior art patent necessarily forms a direct and unambiguous disclosure of the subject-matter of this combination, in particular if the combination implies a(n arbitrary) selection. When the combination is not unambiguously derivable for the skilled person, it is not an enabling disclosure that anticipates the patent at issue. What matters is whether the skilled person understands that such an assembly of (features from) claims is disclosed and reflects the technical teaching of the document (see EPO BoA T 1658/12).

Generally, common general knowledge is formed by textbooks used as introduction to a field of technology. Scientific papers, e.g. review articles, may form common general knowledge, but only if it can be assumed that the contents of the papers represent consensus within the scientific community. In the current case, the defendants failed to establish that liposomal mRNA encapsulation was common general knowledge at the priority date. The court held that inclusion in specialized review articles does not suffice without evidence of widespread community consensus.

Corresponding Headnote: 6. Common General Knowledge (CGK) is not primarily related to a specific document, but rather to a specific knowledge. This knowledge is typically found in textbooks that introduce the field of technology in question. For information to qualify as CGK, it should be present in more than one document. In highly specialised areas, the document may be a review article, handbook or handbook chapter. However, the issue is not whether the information asserted to be CGK is contained in a well-known and widely accepted document. To determine the scope of CGK, the real issue is whether the relevant factual information is so elementary, convincing and consensual that a person skilled in the relevant field will necessarily know it and whether the relevant community has accepted it as an established empirical fact.