Topics: Inventive Step
-
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→ -
LD Munich, April 4, 2025, Decision on infringement and counterclaim for revocation, UPC_CFI_501/2023
Jurisdiction over multiple defendants with commercial relationship and same infringement (Art. 33(1)(b) UPCA).: Multiple defendants can be sued at the domicile, principal place of business, or place of business of one defendant if they have a commercial relationship and the action concerns the same alleged infringement (“anchor-defendant”). Headnote 1 of the decision clarifies: In the…
4 min Reading time→ -
Contact us personally!
Tips and advice directly from our Unitary Patents professionals.
-
CD Paris, January 21, 2025, decision on validity, UPC_CFI_311/2023
A revocation claimant must present all grounds of invalidity with the Statement of Claim: In revocation actions, the claimant is required to specify the grounds of invalidity that allegedly affect the contested patent, as well as prior art documents relied upon to support any allegation of lack of novelty or inventive step in its statement…
3 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_315/2023
The Court does not evaluate reasons for revocation that the Claimant has not raised.: The Claimant defines the scope of evaluation for a revocation action. If a party, in its first submission, raises an argument and the other party takes issue with this argument in reply, the party may further substantiate its initial argument in…
5 min Reading time→ -
LD Munich, July 31, 2024, Decision on the merits, UPC_CFI_233/2023
Applicable standard concerning novelty: In order to be considered part of the state of the art (Art. 54 (1) EPC), an invention must be found clearly integrally, directly and unambiguously in one single piece of prior art and in its existing form, it must be identical in its constitutive elements, in the same form, with…
4 min Reading time→ -
Central division (Section Munich), Decision in Revocation Action, UPC 1/2023, UPC 14/2023
Claim interpretation: 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. A feature in a patent claim is always to be interpreted in light of the claim as a…
5 min Reading time→ -
LD Paris, July 4, 2024, Decision on the merits in an action for infringement with counterclaim for revocation, UPC_CFI_230/2023
The scope of the dispute brought before the Court is incontestably governed by the principle that the parties define the subject-matter of the dispute, a general principle of law which is reiterated in Art. 76(1) UPCA.: This principle allows the claimant in the main action to exclude certain acts of infringement in order to avoid…
6 min Reading time→
Stay in the loop
Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.