UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, 23 April 2026: On statements made during patent prosecution ...

Direct literal infringement (Article 25 UPCA). 

Infringement order in respect of all Contracting States (Article 25 UPCA, Article 34 UPCA). For an order to be issued in respect of all Contracting Member States in which the patent is in force, it is sufficient to determine an infringing act in one Contracting Member State. This applies even if an infringing act can only be determined in a Contracting Member State in which the patent proprietor does not assert any claims in the infringement action for procedural reasons – pending national patent infringement proceedings - (‘carve out’). 

Motion for provisional reimbursement of costs in Reply to the statement of defence dismissed as late filed amendment (R. 263 RoP).

Claim construction (Article 69 EPC). Statements made by the applicant during the grant proceedings may serve as an indication of the understanding of a person skilled in the art as of the filing date. […] This is based on the idea that the applicant himself usually has the best understanding of his invention […]. It appears doubtful whether this case law can be extended to statements made during the grant proceedings regarding a patent other than the patent at issue. In any event, nothing can be inferred from such statements if they do not reveal a specific understanding of the scope of protection of the patent at issue. This is the case here. 

Liability for damages (Article 68 UPCA). As specialized companies, the defendants were obligated to monitor the intellectual property rights situation. Furthermore, they had positive knowledge of the allegations brought against them at the latest since the warning letter issued in 2020 and, subsequently, also through the German patent infringement proceedings. Nor can the defendants successfully argue that the Federal Patent Court has since declared the contested patent invalid. The defendants themselves do not claim that they engaged in acts of use only during the period between the first-instance judgment of the Federal Patent Court and the dismissal of the German nullity action by the Federal Court of Justice.

IPPT20260423, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Quantificare v Canfield