UPC CFI, LD Milan, 10 April 2026 : Lack of novelty, overall disclosure of prior art , mapping and more.
24-07-2026 Print this page
Successful revocation of unitary patent – lack of novelty. (Article 65 UPCA, Article 54 EPC).
Patent not novel over prior art D2 – overall disclosure of technical function in prior art (Article 54 EPC).
Claim 1 as well as the dependent claims lack novelty over prior art (D2) - subject matter of the claim is directly and unambiguously disclosed in the prior art.
The Court will examine the disclosure of the prior art document overall and will compare this disclosure to the scope of the patent in suit. If one way of “mapping” leads to the assessment that a piece of prior art is novelty destroying, this leads to the result that the patent must be revoked.
With regard to purpose characteristics, the assessment of novelty only requires an assessment if prior art discloses a device with physical characteristics as disclosed in the patent, irrespective of the specific intended use.
The names of components may indicate a certain technical function, but the court assesses the disclosure of the prior art document on the whole -
the Court will focus on the technical function the disclosed components provide.
Court is not bound by claim construction offered by a party’s expert (Article 69 EPC).
The party’s expert opinion is seen as part of the party’s submission and considered carefully by the Court. However, it is still the Court’s duty to assess the patent and find the correct claim construction on the basis of the patent.
Auxiliary Requests not allowable (Rule 30 RoP, Article 84 EPC)
Auxiliary request 1 is not patentable as it is not novel over prior art D2. Auxiliary requests 2 to 13 lack clarity and are therefore not allowable.
