UPC CFI LD Dusseldorf, 31 October 2024: Claim construction and prior art

03-12-2024 Print this page
Auteur:
Dick van Engelen
IPPT20241031, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Sodastream v Aarke

Claim construction (Article 69 EPC). 

 

Skilled person will not stop at the literal meaning of a feature but will determine the meaning of the word ”flask“ in the context of the patent claim as a whole. In doing so, the skilled person will turn to the technical function of the flask given by the individual feature and in the context of the other features. 

 

The claim must not be limited to the scope of preferred embodiments. The scope of a claim extends to subject-matter that the skilled person understands as the patentee's claim after interpretation using the description and drawings. A claim interpretation which is supported by the description and drawings as a whole is generally not limited by a drawing showing only a specific shape of a component. 

 

The Court does not find the fact that the claim is drafted in the so-called two-part form relevant.

Apart from the fact that the Court does not rely on the grant procedure as interpretative aid because the procedure is not mentioned in Art. 69 EPC, the Defendant´s argument also fails on the merits. Whether or not the patentee chooses to claim the invention in a two-part form, this does not have any implication for the interpretation of the claim with respect to the scope of protection regarding infringement issues. As the claim must be interpreted as a whole, generally every feature – no matter where in the claim structure it appears – has to be taken into account. 

No additional room for a  Gillette defence understood in the way the Defendant presented it. 

Prior art is not mentioned in Article 69(1) EPC. The limitation to the description and the drawings as interpretation material serves the purpose of legal certainty, since the scope of protection can be conclusively determined from the patent itself. 

If prior art is discussed in the description of the patent in suit, the relevant considerations must be taken into account. 

If the patent in suit distinguishes itself from the prior art in a particular way, an interpretation that negates that distinction must be avoided. In the case at hand, as it can be seen above, in interpreting the claim, the Court took into account the discussed distinction from the prior art in detail. 

 

No publication of decision (Article 80 UPCA). The Claimant´s interests are already satisfied by the effects of the other orders made by this decision on the merits. The right of publication includes a further element of punishment. Publication should therefore only be granted if the protection of the Claimant is not provided effectively and sufficiently ensured by the other measures ordered. This is not the case here. 

 

Entitlement to damages on the merits (Article 68(1) UPCA). The Defendant should have been aware, through the exercise of due diligence, that its actions infringed the patent in suit. 

 

Provisional damages covering the expected costs of the proceedings for the award of damages and compensation of EUR 250.000 (R. 119 RoP.) 

 

IPPT20241031, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Sodastream v Aarke