Stay of infringement action and counterclaim for revocation regarding EP 857 (R. 295(m) RoP) pending the outcome of the appeal against the first instance decision of the Local Division Düsseldorf in the infringement proceedings regarding patent EP 3 536 712 (“EP712”). The question of infringement of EP 857 involves the...

No annulment of decision of the EPO to reject a request for unitary effect because of an incorrect name and postal address submitted by a third party on behalf of the proprietors (R. 97.4 RoP). The fact that the third party was not aware of the change in address or the irregularity does not excuse the irregularity. The...

No need to amend case because of amended B2 version of European Patent (R. 263 RoP). Article 68 EPC clarifies that from the outset the patent shall be deemed not to have had the effects specified in Art. 64 and Art. 67 EPC to the extent that the patent is limited. Therefore, already on the date on which the SoC was...

Explanation of proposed claim interpretation in the Statement of claim only required “where appropriate”(R. 13.1(n) RoP). In the present case, the applicant considered that the interpretation of the terms of the contested claims was not necessary because it considered that those terms had no particular meaning in the...

Patent revoked because claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 10 and 35 are invalid due to an extension of subject matter (Article 138(1)(c) EPC, Article 123(2) EPC). On test for added matter UPC Court of Appeal, 14 February 2025, UPC_CoA_382/2024 (Abbott/Sibio),.  [...] it follows from the above principles set out by the Court of Appeal...

Patent revoked to the extent of claim 1 because of added matter (Article 65 UPCA). Added matter (Article 138(1)(c) EPC, Article 76 EPC, Article 123(2) EPC). The criterion to determine whether a divisional application extends beyond the content of the parent application is the same as the one applied to determine...

Claim construction: patent’s own lexicon (Article 69 EPC). The Court considers that according to the ordinary meaning of the wording in common language as well as in the context of the description and the drawings of the patent, the term “a working surface” is to be interpreted as meaning “one working surface”. In this...

Change of the variables stored in the computer’s RAM does not constitute a form of expression of a computer program: The protection afforded by the Software Directive 2009/24 does not extend to the content of the variable data transferred to the RAM of a computer and used by that program in its running, in so far that...

Alleged invalidity of the rules on jurisdiction of Article 31 UPCA in conjunction with Article 71a of the Brussels regulation are a ground for a Preliminary objection (R. 19.1 RoP). Insofar as a violation of Article 47(2) of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 6 of the ECHR due to the absence of a Central...

Leave to appeal - request to refer questions to the CJEU denied (R. 221 RoP, Article 21 UPCA). Right to seek a cost decision (Article 69 UPCA) elapses after expiry of the one month time limit (R. 151 RoP). Can only be remedied through reestablishment of rights (R. 320 RoP). UPCA and RoP must be interpreted in a manner...

Request for a provisional injunction and additional measures dismissed. Infringement not more likely than not  (R. 211 RoP). Jurisdiction because of combined/joint threatened infringement by Sinocare and Menarini in UPCA territory of the same patent in the same territory with the same product (Article 7(2) BR). Not in...

Hearing together of two parallel actions based on the same patent concerning the same alleged infringing product (R. 302 RoP) in view of the very similar arguments put forward in defence, and in view of the parallel evidence preservation measures that were carried out and which were the subject of almost identical...

Time period for starting proceedings on the merits following an order to preserve evidence (R. 198.1 RoP). Order of 18 March 2025 changing the start of the time period from 28 February 2025 to the date  on which the expert report will be made available has become final as the order of the judge rapporteur has not been...

Patent amended (Article 65 UPCA), Direct infringement (Article 25 UPCA). Competence in relation to Meril Germany (Article 33.1(a) and (b) UPCA). On the Meril website, Meril Germany is described as Meril’s European Headquarters and the brochure specifies inter alia that Meril Germany can provide information on the...

Revocation dismissed, maintained as granted (Article 65 UPCA). Inadmissible newly raised arguments for lack of novelty of the independent claims and added subject-matter in the dependent claims (R. 44 RoP, R. 263 RoP). The newly raised arguments do not follow the defence and there are no objective obstacles to their...

Application to postpone the date of the oral hearing for interim measures not granted (R. 210 RoP, R. 9 RoP). Due to the urgent nature of the hearing of an application for interim measures, a postponement can only be considered in very special circumstances. This does not automatically include the absence of the...

Withdrawal of infringement action and counterclaim for revocation pursuant to settlement (R. 265.1 RoP). Only 40% instead of 60% reimbursement of Court fees (€ 30.400 and € 8.000, respectively) due to the parties having conducted the proceedings outstanding intensively. (R. 370.9(e) RoP). Application for compensation...

Succesfull appeal: preliminary injunction granted because of imminent infringement (Article 62 UPCA, R. 206 RoP). In the context of marketing of generics, the mere application for a marketing authorisation by a generics company does not amount to an imminent infringement, nor does the grant of such an authorisation...

Application for leave to change the claim rejected (R. 263 RoP). An application must explain why such change was not included in the original pleading. Leave shall not be granted if, all circumstances considered, the party seeking the amendment cannot satisfy the Court that (a) the amendment in question could not have...

Undisputed extension for submission Statement of response as Cisco did not have access to the unredacted version of the appeal when it filed its statement of appeal (R. 262A RoP, R. 235 RoP). Extension limited to only two weeks since the information concerned is a relatively small portion of the grounds of appeal.