Topics: added matter
-
LD Munich, decision, december 19, 2025, UPC_CFI_437/2024, UPC_CFI_681/2024
Squeeze of claim interpretation and added matter: Claim interpretation Principles The interpretation of a patent claim is a matter of law (Court of Appeal UPC_CoA_405/2024, 19 June 2025 – Alexion/Amgen). Therefore, the Court cannot leave the judicial task of interpreting the patent claim to an expert but must construe the claim independently (Court of Appeal,…
3 min Reading time→ -
CoA, November 25, 2025, Decision on competence of the divisions, amendments of the patent, added matter, novelty, inventive step, scope of protection, permanent injunctions, interim award of costs, UPC_CoA_464/2024 etc.
The “same parties” requirement for exclusive local division jurisdiction under Art. 33(4) UPCA means the parties must be identical legal entities.: A revocation action by a claimant company is not barred by a pending infringement action against its parent and another subsidiary, as they are not identical parties. An exception for res judicata effect did not apply…
5 min Reading time→ -
Contact us personally!
Tips and advice directly from our Unitary Patents professionals.
-
CoA, November 25, 2025, Decision on claim interpretation medical use claim, added matter, sufficiency, inventive step, reasonable expectation of success, UPC_CoA_528/2024, UPC_CoA_529/2024
Inventive step (Art. 56 EPC) exists if scientific uncertainty at the priority date prevented a ‘reasonable expectation of success’, even if there was a ‘hope to succeed’.: The Court found that uncertainty about the relative contribution of a protein’s intracellular versus extracellular pathways in vivo was a critical factor preventing a reasonable expectation of success. Prior art…
5 min Reading time→ -
LD Hamburg, November 5, 2025, Decision Regarding Infringement and Counterclaim for Revocation, UPC_CFI_461/2024, UPC_CFI_718/2024
The “same invention” test for priority (Art. 87 EPC) equals the standard for added matter, confirming a consistent disclosure standard across the UPC.: The Court confirmed the recent Dusseldorf LD decision (UPC_CFI_115/2024, Decision of 15 October 2025) that for purposes of determining the correct priority date, the same standard applies as for added matter, as…
4 min Reading time→ -
CD Milan, October 23, 2025, revocation action, UPC_CFI_497/2024
The Court may limit its review to the “most promising” attacks: A high number of undifferentiated attacks suggests a lack of strategy, and the Court is not required to remedy this by choosing one that suggests greater or lesser success of the attack. Nor is the Court required to establish a hierarchical or conceptual order…
5 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, October 2, 2025, decision, UPC_CoA_764/2024, 774/2024
Added matter standard – directly and unambiguously derivable: Whether the subject matter of the granted claim extends beyond the content of the application as originally filed is determined by considering what information a person skilled in the art, based on objective considerations and referring to the filing date and using its general technical knowledge, would…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Paris, May 23, 2025, Decision on the merits, UPC_CFI_163/2024
Assessment of original disclosure: The possibility of alternative options for relative positions of two elements of the claimed subject matter does not imply that a feature directed at one of the elements lacks support, as these alternatives are options, and are not inextricably connected with the arrangement of the feature as claimed (sec. 66). Provided…
4 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, May 13, 2025, decision on second medical use claims, UPC_CFI_505/2024 (sic!) [UPC_CFI_505/2023]
Requirements for the finding of infringement of second medical use claims: For a finding of infringement of second medical use claims, the claimant must show and prove (i) as an objective element, that there is either a prescription for use according to the patent, or at least additional circumstances showing that such use may be…
4 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, February 14, 2025, order on request for provisional measures, UPC_CoA_382/2024
Claim construction regarding means-plus-function features.: Means-plus-function features must be understood as any feature suitable for carrying out the function (headnote 1, para. 47). Added matter assessment.: General provisions: The Court must ascertain what the skilled person would derive directly and unambiguously using their common general knowledge and seen objectively and relative to the date of…
7 min Reading time→ -
CD Paris, December 18, 2024, decision in revocation action, UPC_CFI_454/2023
Standstill provisions do not impact UPC’s jurisdiction: Even if a standstill provision requiring pre-suit notification is breached, this does not affect the Court’s jurisdiction or the admissibility of the action. The Court emphasized that access to justice is a fundamental right (Art. 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU), but that such…
4 min Reading time→ -
LD Paris, December 11, 2024, Decision on the merits, UPC_CFI_395/2023
Headnote 1: Order pursuant to R. 36 RoP does not authorize to raise new grounds; UPC procedure is front-loaded system.: The order pursuant to Rule 36 RoP issued by the judge-rapporteur relates to adding some arguments to the debate related to some specific terms regarding claim interpretation, but it did not authorise the defendant to raise a new…
5 min Reading time→ -
LD The Hague, November 22, 2024, Decision on the merits, UPC_CFI_239/2023
Assessment of the scope of protection in infringement cases in two steps: (i) literal infringement; (ii) infringement by equivalence: The UPCA contains no provision on the infringement by equivalence, however, Art. 2 of the Protocol to Art. 69 EPC makes clear that equivalence must be considered: “For the purpose of determining the extent of protection…
6 min Reading time→ -
CD Paris, November 5, 2024, Revocation action, UPC_CFI_309/2023
R. 30 (1) (c) RoP does not set out the consequence that all amendments proposed (auxiliary requests) should be dismissed en bloc as not meeting the criterion of being reasonable in number.: Only some of the proposed auxiliary requests may be admitted. The Court can limit a patent by an amendment of the claims and…
7 min Reading time→
Stay in the loop
Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.