UPC CFI, LD Munich, 4 April 2025, Edwards v Meril: heart valve patent valid and infringed
07-07-2025 Print this page
Direct infringement of patent (Article 25 UPCA), counterclaim for revocation dismissed (Article 65 UPCA).
Relevant date for determining the relevant territories covered by the patentee's request (Article 34 UPCA) is the date of filing of the statement of claim and not the date of the last oral hearing.
Same alleged infringement (Article 33(1)(b) UPCA).In the context of a European patent without unitary effect, the term "the same infringement" addresses situations where multiple defendants are accused of infringing the relevant national designations of the same European patent by the same product or process.
Inventive step (Article 56 EPC).Problem-solution-approach developed by the European patent Office (EPO) shall primarily be applied as a tool to the extent feasible to enhance legal certainty and further align the jurisprudence of the Unified Patent Court with the jurisprudence of the EPO and the Boards of Appeal (BoA).
Claim construction (Article 69 EPC). Emphasised that a narrowing construction of a broader claim language ("Auslegung unterhalb des Wortlauts") on the basis of the description or drawings should only be allowed in exceptional cases
Added matter in case of divisional applications (Article 138(c) EPC): Where the patent is a divisional application, this requirement applies to each earlier application. The Court of Appeal notes that the assessment of added matter cannot be limited to those parts of the original application which the patentee has indicated as the basis for an amended claim during the examination proceedings before the EPO, since a proper understanding of those parts also requires an assessment of their content in the context of the disclosure of the application as a whole.
Injunction subject to a recurring penalty (Article 63 UPCA). A declaration to cease and desist without a penalty clause by one or more but not all defendants cannot secure the patentee's interest in defending the exclusive nature of its right in the same way as a court order. The risk remains that the members of the group will re-organise their business around such isolated cease-and-desist declarations and thus continue to infringe the patent in the relevant territories without the risk of having to pay a penalty.
Decision not subject to security (R. 352 RoP).
