Direct patent infringement (Article 25 UPCA); Injunction for Germany, France and Sweden, recall, destruction, providing information, to compensate for damages.
Mere use of subclaims as additional arguments at the oral hearing to support a previous position taken by Claimant is not considered late (R. 263 RoP, Article 69 EPC). As claim construction is a matter of law and the Court must independently construe the claims, and as the construction of feature 1.6. was in dispute between the parties anyway.
Claim interpretation: embodiments and subclaims as examples of the invention (Article 69 EPC). If several embodiments are presented in the description as being in accordance with the invention, the terms used in the claim are to be understood, in case of doubt, as meaning that all embodiments can be used to fulfil them. The same applies for subclaims, which do not normally narrow the scope of the main claim. They merely demonstrate possibilities for its design, which may offer an additional advantage.
Claim interpretation: a statement of purpose in the claim (Article 69 EPC) usually serve to improve understanding of the invention and as a rule have the indirect effect of defining the subject matter protected by the patent in such a way that it must not only fulfil the spatial-physical features, but must also be designed to be usable for the purpose stated in the claim.
Extent of protection – burden of proof of non-infringement (Article 69 EPC, R. 171 RoP). It is for the Defendant to work out in each case in relation to the individual features of the claim, how specifically the technical design of the challenged embodiment differs in each case from the description in the article and to explain why this is relevant for the question of infringement.
Rebuttable presumption of infringement (Article 25 UPCA). By offering and placing the challenged embodiment on the market, the Defendant gives rise to a rebuttable presumption that it also uses it or imports or possesses it for the purposes of offering, placing on the market, or using it.
Extent of protection – enabling disclosure (Article 69 EPC, Article 83 EPC). Even if the claim does not specify the more detailed technical design of the surface structure of the array at the time of release, the presence of an array in the aforementioned sense, from the surface of which the release takes place, remains necessary.
Enforcement not subject to security (Article 82(2) UPCA, R. 118.8 RoP). It is for the Defendant to submit facts and arguments as to why it is appropriate in the particular case to make the order or measure pursuant to R. 118.8 RoP subject to a security to be determined by the Court.
IPPT20250616, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, 10x Genomics v Curio Bioscience
