CD Paris, November 29, 2024, revocation action, UPC_CFI_307/2023

The common general knowledge is information which has been commonly known to the skilled person from written sources or from practical experience in the relevant technical field available at the prior date: it includes knowledge which is directly available from familiar sources of information relating to the specific technical field but does not necessarily include all the publicly available knowledge, which may not be general and common.

The person skilled in the art (skilled person) is a legal fiction which, in the interests of legal certainty, forms a standardized basis for the assessment of the legal concepts of ‘prior art’, ‘novelty, ‘inventive step’ and ‘enablement’. The skilled person stands for the average expert who is typically active in the technical field of the invention, has had the usual prior training and has acquired average knowledge, skills and practical experience for routine work, but does not have inventive imagination, thinking and skills. When interpreting a patent claim, the person skilled in the art does not apply a philological understanding but determines the technical meaning of the terms used with the aid of the description and the drawings.

The parties are required to set out their case as early as possible in the proceedings nevertheless specific new arguments may be admitted into the proceedings in consideration of specific circumstances of the case. The documents introduced by the Claimant in the Reply to defence to revocation are admissible, given that it contains arguments regarding the common general knowledge and the claim construction which are intended to contrast and react to the arguments raised by the Defendant in its Defence to revocation.

The Reply to the Defence to revocation is the last written pleading that the Claimant may lodge to present its case. Respectfully the Defendant may lodge a Rejoinder to the Reply according to Rule 52 ‘RoP’ which is its last written pleading. The ‘Reply to the Rejoinder’ is inadmissible. In the interest of efficient proceedings, no further arguments can be introduced at this stage of the proceedings. Their admission would not be in line with the UPC’s front-loaded system.