UPC CFI, LD Dusseldorf, 30 July 2025: Patent revoked because of added matter (without reasonable doubt)

Patent revoked to the extent of claim 1 because of added matter (Article 65 UPCA). 

Added matter (Article 138(1)(c) EPC, Article 76 EPC, Article 123(2) EPC). 

The criterion to determine whether a divisional application extends beyond the content of the parent application is the same as the one applied to determine whether an application contains added subject-matter with respect to the application as originally filed. 

When the Court has to decide on the merits, as it is case in the present instance, the standard to be used for assessing the presence of added subject-matter is the criterion of “beyond (reasonable) doubt”. 

Features 1.5.1 and 1.5.3.1 (resp. feature 1.5.3.2) are not disclosed in the earlier application as originally filed because, according to this application, the processor determines whether a network service usage activity is running in the background (resp. foreground), instead of whether a (first) device application is running in the background (resp. foreground), as claimed. 

The Court also finds that there is no API blocking access (features 1.5.2, 1.5.3) disclosed based on the determination that the application is running in the background. 

No new line of arguments allowed at oral hearing (R. 9.2 RoP). As the issue has been raised from the outset and the new argument is based on completely different passages of a lengthy document, neither the Court nor the other party may be forced to deal with it from scratch. Deciding otherwise would undermine the concept of front-loaded procedure established by the Rules of Procedure. 

Presumption of the register that Claimant is the person entitled to be registered as proprietor of European patent not rebutted by presentation of alleged co-ownership (R. 8.5(c) RoP) given limitation periods under German and French law.

IPPT20250730, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Headwater Research v Samsung Electronics