Home » UPC decisions » Luxembourg Court of Appeal » UPC Court of Appeal, Order of April 30, 2025, UPC_CoA_768/2024

UPC Court of Appeal, Order of April 30, 2025, UPC_CoA_768/2024

3 min Reading time

Key takeaways

The interpretation of a patent claim is a matter of law. Therefore, the Court cannot leave the judicial task of interpreting the patent claim to an expert but has to construe the claim independently.

The skilled person is a notional entity that cannot be equated with any real person in the technical field of the invention. The decisive factor is not the individual knowledge and abilities of a person, but rather the general specialist knowledge that is customary in the relevant field of technology, as well as the average knowledge, experience, and abilities in this specialist field. It is for the Court, not the expert, to assess these circumstances.

In general, the risk of the continuation of the infringement arises from a prior infringement, if the infringer does not issue a cease-and-desist declaration with a sufficient penalty clause.

If one party is partially unsuccessful, the costs do not always have to be apportioned proportionately. In particular where a party’s unsuccessful claim was relatively minor and did not cause further costs, its entire costs may be awarded against the other party.

Division

CoA Luxembourg

UPC number

UPC_CoA_768/2024

Type of proceedings

Request for provisional measures

Parties

Applicant: Insulet Corporation
Respondent: EOFlow Co., Ltd.

Patent(s)

EP4201327

Body of legislation / Rules

Art. 62 (1) UPCA, Art. 69 (2) UPCA


Was the article helpful?


Categories


Tags

  • Lisa Fleidl, Attorney-at-Law at BARDEHLE PAGENBERG

    Attorney-at-Law (Rechtsanwältin), UPC Representative

Stay in the loop

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

* = Required field