Home » UPC decisions » Luxembourg Court of Appeal » Court of Appeal, February 26, 2024, order on provisional measures, UPC_CoA_335/2023

Court of Appeal, February 26, 2024, order on provisional measures, UPC_CoA_335/2023

5 min Reading time

Key takeaways

The interpretation of a patent claim does not depend solely on the strict, literal meaning of the wording used. Rather, the description and the drawings must always be used as explanatory aids for the interpretation of the patent claim and not only to resolve any ambiguities in the patent claim.

This does not mean that the patent claim merely serves as a guideline but that its subject-matter also extends to what, after examination of the description and drawings, appears to be the subject-matter for which the patent proprietor seeks protection.

The patent claim is to be interpreted from the point of view of a person skilled in the art.

The burden of presentation and proof lies with the applicant.

The licence holder is also entitled to submit an application, Art. 47(3) UPCA.

In Rule 206.2 RoP, a distinction must be made between the provision in letter (a) and the provisions in letters (b)-(e).

The requirements in letter (a) are of a formal nature and can be corrected after objection by the registry; otherwise a decision by default according to Rules 16.5, 355.1(a) RoP may be issued.

The requirements in letters (b)-(e) concern the merits of an application. They are subject to judicial review and are taken into account in orders according to Rules 209, 211 and 212 RoP.

In the statement of grounds of appeal, the defendant had asked for a court indication if, in addition to statements on admissibility, submissions on the merits were also required. This advice was given at the hearing, whereby the applicant was not unfairly disadvantaged.

Division

Court of Appeal, Luxembourg

UPC number

UPC_CoA_335/2023

Type of proceedings

Appeal proceedings

Parties

Defendants and appelants: 1. NanoString Technologies Inc. 2. NanoString Technologies Germany GmbH 3. NanoString Technologies Netherlands B.V.

Applicants and respondents: 1. 10x Genomics, Inc. 2. President and Fellows of Harvard College

Patent(s)

EP 4 108 782

Body of legislation / Rules

Rule 8.4 RoP, Rule 206.2 RoP, Rule 222.1 RoP, Art. 47 UPCA, Art. 69 EPC


Was the article helpful?


Categories


Tags

Stay in the loop

Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.

* = Required field