Topics: Art. 54 EPC
-
Central Division Munich, July 21, 2026, Decision – Device Claim Defined by Structure Lacks Novelty Regardless of Function; No Obvious Typographical Error in Prior Art Where the Term Used Is Technically Plausible; UPC_CFI_714/2025
A device claim is assessed on structure, not function: A device claim defined exclusively by structural features is not, as a rule, limited to the device performing any particular function. If prior art discloses a device fulfilling all structural features of the claim and that device is suitable for the claimed purpose, the invention is…
3 min Reading time→ -
Contact us personally!
Tips and advice directly from our Unitary Patents professionals.
-
LD Milan, May 5, 2026, Decision, UPC_CFI_727/2024
Prosecution file statements before the EPO, while not binding, may guide claim interpretation as reflecting the skilled person’s view (Art. 69 EPC, Art. 24(1)(c) UPCA): The claimant’s own statement during EPO grant proceedings — that abutment of a rolling body row against an edge was “essential” for achieving simultaneous preloading — confirmed the Court’s strict…
5 min Reading time→ -
LD Helsinki, April 29, 2026, decision on infringement and validity, UPC_CFI_214/2023, UPC_CFI_403/2025
Parties select equivalence approach absent CoA case law: When assessing an issue where there is no Court of Appeal case law, such as equivalence, and where both parties have argued based on the same Court of First Instance case law, legal certainty and/or the right of defence guides the local division to adopt a similar…
3 min Reading time→
Stay in the loop
Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.