UPC CFI, LD Dusseldorf, 12 February 2026 : PI Granted. Disagreement with claim interpretation does not shift burden of proof.
22-04-2026 Print this page
Preliminary injunction granted . (Article 62(1) UPCA , Rule 209 RoP, Rule 211 RoP) . Infringement is assumed. Late filed non infringement arguments submitted in the rejoinder. (Article 25 (a)UPCA, Rule 52 RoP).
Claim interpretation (Article 69 EPC)
Defendants disagreement with claim interpretation applied by the EPO in the examination concerning lack of validity of the patent does not mean that the burden of proof should shift to the patent proprietor (Article 65 UPCA, Article 54 UPCA).
It is not more likely than not that the patent in suit is not valid (Article 65 UPCA).
The mere fact that the Applicant has relied on combinations of claim 1 with sub-claims, does not lead to the invalidity of claim 1 being more likely than not.
The liability of a managing director applies even more so to a financial holding company – Belkin v Philips . (Article 25 UPCA).
When no action going beyond the typical role of shareholder/financial holding is alleged, the application against this defendant has to be rejected.
