UPC CFI, lD Mannheim, 6 June 2025: Technical and functional equivalence required for infringement
29-06-2025 Print this page
Patent infringement claim dismissed (Article 25 UPCA), partial revocation (Article 65 UPCA).
No abuse of right during the transitional period by also filing a patent infringement before the national regional court at Munich regarding the same acts and a patent belonging to the same patent family (Article 83 UPCA).
Amendments to corrective measures of the Statement of claim are not objectionable as such (R. 263 RoP, R. 30 RoP). The application for a declaratory judgment made in the oral hearing is not admissible as an extension of the action, R. 263.1, .2 (a) RoP.
Doctrine of equivalence (Article 2 Interpretation Protocol). There is no equivalent patent infringement if there is no technical and functional equivalence of the substitute product in the sense that the modified products do not essentially fulfil the same function in order to achieve essentially the same effect. Insofar as the same function is not taken as a basis, at least essentially the same effect is taken as a basis.
Revocation of dependent subclaims (Article 65 UPCA). There is generally no legal interest in the isolated removal of dependent subclaims by means of an action for annulment (or counterclaim) without removing the independent claim to which they refer. The subject matter of the patent in suit is not extended by these subclaims as such.
Appropriate number of auxiliary request depends on the circumstances of the case and the number of attacks on the patent in suit may also be taken into account (R. 30.1 c) RoP)
