UPC CFI LD Paris, 13 November 2024: Claim construction in French language proceedings in the English language of the application
08-12-2024 Print this page
Claim construction in language of the patent (Article 69 EPC). Appropriate in French language proceedings to examine all arguments raised in relation to the interpretation of the patent with reference to the patent application as filed in English. Novelty (article 54 EPC). To form part of the state of the art the invention must be found in its entirety and in a single prior art document with its constituent elements, in the same form, with the same arrangement and the same operation with a view to achieving the same technical result. No need to apply national law regarding acts of infringement occurring before 1 June 2023 (Article 25 and 26 UPCA). In the territories of the Contracting States that signed the UPCA of 20 June 2013, the acts referred to in Articles 25 and 26 UPCA were already considered to be infringements qualified as acts of infringement by European patent law (Article 69 EPC) or in the national laws of those States that were harmonised by Directive 2004/48/EC of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights relating to infringements of existing European patents. No prior knowledge of infringement required (Article 25 UPCA). The text does not require the plaintiff to prove that the defendant had prior knowledge of the existence of the patent and the materiality of the alleged infringement. Exhaustion of rights and jurisdiction (Article 29 UPCA). It is therefore for the Court to consider whether the evidence adduced by HPDC is sufficient to show that the allegedly infringing HP cartridges were indeed placed on the market by LAMA in the territory of the EU after having been the subject of unauthorised parallel imports and therefore do not fall within the exception of exhaustion of rights provided for in Article 29 UPCA, that is to say that those cartridges were not first marketed by HP within the EU. No need to refer to the CJEU as the competition law defense is clearly ineffective (R. 266 RoP).
