Home » UPC decisions » Local Division » Mannheim Local Division » LD Mannheim, June 6, 2025, Decision, UPC_CFI_471/2023

LD Mannheim, June 6, 2025, Decision, UPC_CFI_471/2023

4 min Reading time

Key takeaways

According to all doctrines of equivalence or equivalence tests of the UPC contracting member states, equivalent patent infringement is ruled out if there is no technical-functional equivalence of the substitute means in the sense that the modified means do not perform essentially the same function in order to achieve essentially the same effect. Insofar as the same function is not taken as a reference, at least essentially the same effect is taken as a reference (following the Local Division Brussels, Beslissing ten gronde of January 17, 2025, mn. 98).

In general, there is no need for legal protection for the isolated revocation of dependent sub-claims by means of a (counter)claim for revocation without revoking the independent claim to which they are related. The subject matter of the patent in suit is not extended by these sub-claims. At most, sub-claims can have an effect on the interpretation when determining the scope of protection of an independent claim in specific individual cases, which must be demonstrated in each individual case.

The appropriate number of auxiliary requests pursuant to R. 30.1 (c) RoP depends on the circumstances of the individual case. The number of attacks on the patent in suit may be taken into account.

The decision addresses the admissibility and classification of various adjustments to the parties’ applications (see mn. 45 et seq.).

Division

Local Division Mannheim

UPC number

UPC_CFI_471/2023

Type of proceedings

Infringement proceedings, counterclaim for revocation, application to amend the patent

Parties

DISH Technologies L.L.C., Sling TV L.L.C.

vs.

AYLO PREMIUM LTD, AYLO Billing Limited, AYLO FREESITES LTD, AYLO BILLING US CORP., BROCKWELL GROUP LLC, BRIDGEMAZE GROUP LLC

Patent(s)

EP 2 479 680

Jurisdictions

Austria (AT), Denmark (DK), Finland (FI), France (FR), Germany (DE), Italy (IT), Netherlands (NL), Portugal (PT), Sweden (SE)

Body of legislation / Rules

Art. 7 (2), Art. 71b (1) Brussels-1a-Regulation
Art. 33 (1) (a), Art. 83, Art. 69 (1), Art. 67, Art. 68 (3) (a) (b), Art. 59, Art. 24 (1) (e) UPCA
Art. 54 (1), (2), Art. 56, Art. 138 and Art. 65(2) EPC
Art. 69 EPC and Art. 2 of Protocol on Interpretation
Rules 30.1 (c), 118.5, 263.1, 263.2 (a) (b), 262A, 352, 190, 191, 354.2, 7.2, 118.8, 158.2, 354, 355.4, 220.1 (a), 224.1 (a) RoP


Was the article helpful?


Categories


Tags

  • Attorney-at-Law (Rechtsanwältin), UPC Representative

  • Attorney-at-Law (Rechtsanwalt), UPC Representative, Partner

Stay in the loop

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

* = Required field