LD Düsseldorf, October 22, 2026, final decision, UPC_CFI_52/2025, UPC_CFI_67/2025

Like Panel 1 of the LD Düsseldorf (cf. UPC_CFI_807/2024, decision of May 27, 2026), Panel 2 of the LD Düsseldorf applies the assessment criteria for equivalence under patent law established by the LD The Hague (UPC_CFI_239/2023, decision of November 22, 2024; UPC_CFI_479/2025, order of September 11, 2025), as, pursuant to Panel 2, these criteria form a coherent framework and, as such, are suitable for the assessment of equivalence.

A variation is equivalent to a feature specified in the claim if the following four questions are answered in the affirmative:

1. Technical equivalence: Does the variation solve (substantially) the same problem as the patented invention and, in that context, perform (substantially) the same function? This is to be assessed from an objective perspective
2. Is the extension of the scope of protection of the claim to the equivalent proportionate in relation to appropriate protection for the patentee? This is to be assessed in light of the patentee’s contribution to the state of the art, considering whether it would have been obvious to the person skilled in the art, from the patent publication (at the time of infringement), how to apply the equivalent element.
3. Reasonable legal certainty for third parties: Does the person skilled in the art recognize from the patent that the scope of the invention is broader than the literal scope claimed?
4. Is the allegedly infringing product novel and inventive over the state of the art?