UPC CoA, 3 October 2025: managing director is as such not an accomplice to a patent infringement by the company
05-10-2025 Print this page
“Offer” within the meaning of Article 25(a) UPCA is to be understood in the economic sense and is not based on the legal understanding of a binding contractual offer.
“Infringer”: the mere position of managing director does not make the managing director and accomplice or accessory to a patent infringement by the company (Article 63 UPCA, Article 25 UPCA).
Claim constructian (Article 69 EPC). Statements made by the applicant during the grant proceedings may be regarded as an indication of the understanding of a person skilled in the art on the filing date […]. However, as the Local Chamber correctly assumed, no other understanding can be inferred from Philips’ statements in the grant proceedings.
The ordering of remedial measures such as recall, removal from distribution channels and destruction in accordance with Art. 64(2)(b), (d) and (e) UPCA is the norm. The infringer bears the burden of proof and must demonstrate that the measures are disproportionate.
Time limit for remedial measures to be set in the decision or final order (R. 118 RoP). If no time limit is set in the final order or decision, it is up to the plaintiff to set a time limit for the defendant to take the aforementioned remedial measures by notifying the defendant of the intention to enforce the order in accordance with R. 118.8 RoP.
