Author: Jakob Scheffel

  • LD Paris, April 16, 2026, Infringement Action and Counterclaim for Revocation, UPC_CFI_138/2025, UPC_CFI_522/2025

    Party-affiliated affidavits are valuable technical information but lack the probative value of independent expert opinions (R. 181(2) RoP).: Both parties submitted affidavits from current or former employees. The Court treated these as witness statements rather than expert opinions, but nonetheless considered them valuable technical information from persons with industry experience in the relevant technical area.…

  • LD Mannheim, April 16, 2026, Infringement action and Counterclaim for revocation, UPC_CFI_819/2024 and UPC_CFI_414/2025

    Claim construction: The patent is its own lexicon, “purposive non-use” excludes intent not contamination, and claim features can be technically interdependent.: The term “alkali-free” was interpreted not as a complete absence but as a concentration below a specific threshold defined in the patent itself. The prohibition on “using neither arsenic nor antimony” was held to…

  • LD Paris, April 10, 2026, order on provisional measures, UPC_CFI_1594/2025

    Novelty may be destroyed by implicit disclosure where the skilled person would inevitably infer a feature from the prior art (Art. 54, Art. 138(1)(a) EPC).: The lack of novelty need not stem solely from what is explicitly, immediately and unambiguously disclosed in a prior art document. It may also arise from what is necessarily implied,…

  • CD Milan, April 10, 2026, Revocation action, UPC_CFI_480/2025

    If any legitimate mapping of prior art onto claim features destroys novelty, the patent must be revoked (Art. 54 EPC).: When assessing novelty, the Court will examine the disclosure of the prior art document overall and will compare this disclosure to the scope of the patent-in-suit. If one way of “mapping” leads to the assessment…