UPC CFI, LD Paris, 1 August 2025: No infringement by equivalency of wig manufacturing method - no liability bankruptcy receiver claimant

Infringement claim rejected (Article 25 UPCA). 

Explanation of proposed claim interpretation in the Statement of claim only required “where appropriate”(R. 13.1(n) RoP). In the present case, the applicant considered that the interpretation of the terms of the contested claims was not necessary because it considered that those terms had no particular meaning in the technical field of hairpieces that differed from their common meaning and that the patent description did not give them any special meaning either. 

Claim scope imited to only the claimed edge-tot-edge method (Article 69 EPC). The patent itself describes two distinct modes of implementation (0024 and 0028), and a person skilled in the art will understand in the context of the patent that ‘edge to edge’ is distinct from ‘superimposition’. It is irrelevant that the descriptive part still refers to the superimposed embodiment; what matters is the scope of protection as defined by the claims, which are expressly limited to ‘edge to edge’. The Court also notes that the addition of the words ‘placed edge to edge’ in claim 1 should have led, at the time of grant of the patent, to the removal of the ‘superimposed’ embodiment of the invention mentioned in the description, as this embodiment does not fall within the scope of protection of the patent as finally claimed. 

No late filed claim of infringement by equivalence in Statement of reply (R. 29 RoP) as this claim does not change the nature of the claimant's procedural strategy, which merely adapts it in light of the arguments put forward by GM in its defence, and the defendant was able to respond to it in its rejoinder. 

No equivalency in the absence of the same function (Article 2, Interpretation Protocol). Appropriate to first answer a question that is the lowest common denominator and constitutes the first criterion for examining equivalence: Do the modified (or substitute) means essentially fulfil the same function to achieve essentially the same effect?.

Claim against bankruptcy receiver of claimant and intervening party (R. 313 RoP) for payment of provisional costs inadmissible under French law (Article 24 UPCA, R. 8 RoP, R. 311 RoP). That the bodies responsible for the collective proceedings have chosen to continue the proceedings (paragraph 18 of GM's final statement of defence), does not in any way demonstrate the existence of fault. The French Court of Cassation has repeatedly stated that the liability of the bodies involved in collective proceedings is a special liability regime requiring proof of gross and independent negligence. Such fault is characterised, for example, if the insolvency practitioner decides to continue the proceedings when the company's situation is irretrievably compromised and does not seek the cessation of the company's activities or its liquidation

IPPT20250801, UPC CFI, LD Paris, NJ Diffusion v Gisela Mayer