Patent infringement claim dismissed (Article 25 UPCA).
Claim construction (Article 69 EPC).
Statements made by the applicant during the grant proceedings do not constitute interpretative material for the interpretation of the granted patent within the meaning of Article 69(1) EPC. Nor are such statements by the applicant during the grant proceedings binding for the purposes of interpretation in subsequent infringement or nullity proceedings. However, they may provide an indication of the skilled person’s understanding of the teaching of the granted patent at the priority date.
No amendment of the claim (R. 263 RoP) if, according to the Defendant's Statement of Defence, the attacked product differs in technical details from that described by the Claimant in the Statement of Claim and the Claimant bases the allegation of infringement in the Reply to the Statement of Defence on the technical functioning described by the Defendant, as long as the infringement claim continues to relate to the generally described product and its attacked function.
Conditional counterclaim for revocation allowed (R. 25 RoP). It is admissible in procedural terms for the Defendant to file a counterclaim for revocation in response to an infringement action, subject to the condition subsequent that the infringement action is unsuccessful. If this condition is met because the patent at issue is not infringed regardless of its validity, no decision is required on the counterclaim for revocation.
