Article 138

1. Subject to Article 139, a European patent may be revoked with effect for a Contracting State only on the grounds that:
a) the subject-matter of the European patent is not patentable under Articles 52 to 57;
b) the European patent does not disclose the invention in a manner sufficiently clear and complete for it to be carried out by a person skilled in the art;
c) the subject-matter of the European patent extends beyond the content of the application as filed or, if the patent was granted on a divisional application or on a new application filed under Article 61, beyond the content of the earlier application as filed;
d) the protection conferred by the European patent has been extended; or
e) the proprietor of the European patent is not entitled under Article 60, paragraph 1.

2. If the grounds for revocation affect the European patent only in part, the patent shall be limited by a corresponding amendment of the claims and revoked in part.

3. In proceedings before the competent court or authority relating to the validity of the European patent, the proprietor of the patent shall have the right to limit the patent by amending the claims. The patent as thus limited shall form the basis for the proceedings.

Case Law UPC

UPC Court of Appeal

IPPT20260330, UPC CoA, Sinocare v Abbott
New submission in appeal on added matter refused (R. 222.2 RoP, Article 138(1)(c) EPC). When exercising its discretion, the Court of Appeal can take into account the justification by the party bringing forward the new submission and the relevance of the new submission for the decision in appeal. Although the Appellants were not aware of the reasoning of the LD when preparing their Objection in first instance, they were aware of Respondent’s position that claim 1 also covers a seal that encloses only one side of the contacts portion. The LD has generally accepted this view and merely refers to claims 4 and 5 as a confirmation of this interpretation. Sufficient disclosure (Article 138(1)(b) EPC). The test to be applied is whether the skilled person is able to reproduce the claimed subject matter on the basis of the patent without any inventive effort and without undue burden. An invention is sufficiently disclosed if the patent specification shows the skilled person at least one way – and in case of functional features: one technical concept – of performing the claimed invention.

IPPT20260217, UPC CoA, Rematec v Europe Forestry
Lack of legal interest regarding enabling disclosure of dependent claims 6 and 8 (Article 138(1)(b) EPC) since the counterclaim for revocation is already unsuccessful with respect to the independent patent claim 1, to which patent claims 6 and 8 directly and indirectly refer back and which therefore has a scope of protection that also encompasses patent claims 6 and 8.

IPPT202511225, UPC CoA, Amgen v Sanofi & Regeneron
Added matter (Article 138(1)(c) EPC). The assessment of added matter is a question of law to be decided on the basis of the facts brought forward by the parties. The facts are the relevant claims and the application as filed. Since the test is whether the relevant claims have basis in the application as a whole, the Court is allowed to look at the entire document. Sufficiency (Article 138(1)(b) EPC). Sufficiency has to be examined on the basis of the patent as a whole (claims, description and drawings), from the perspective of the skilled person with his common general knowledge at the filing or priority date. The test is whether the skilled person is able to reproduce the claimed subject matter on the basis of the patent without any inventive effort and without undue burden. An invention is sufficiently disclosed if the patent specification shows the skilled person at least one way – and in case of functional features: one technical concept – of performing the claimed invention. Where a claim contains one or more functional features, it is not required that the disclosure includes specific instructions as to how each and every conceivable embodiment within the functional definition(s) should be obtained. The burden of presentation and proof lies with Respondents as the party invoking invalidity of the patent. A reasonable amount of trial and error does not prevent the invention from being enabled. 

IPPT20251125, UPC CoA, Meril v Edwards
Novelty and added matter are distinct legal concepts and are not governed by identical requirements (Article 54 EPC, Article 138(1)(c) EPC. As a general rule, a specific disclosure, such as a disclosure of the combination of features A and B, takes away the novelty of a more general patent claim claiming feature A as such. In contrast, a patent claim claiming feature A as such may extend beyond a more specific disclosure of the combination of A and B in the application. 

IPPT20251105, UPC CoA, Seoul Viosys v expert
Added matter (Article 138(1)(c) EPC, Article 123(2) EPC, Article 153(4) EPC). The court may, ex officio, find that the skilled person cannot derive a corresponding disclosure from the earlier application. This finding must be determined on the basis of the skilled person's understanding when reading the earlier application in its entirety. With a translation of an international application into one of the official languages of the EPO the applicant submits the application documents to the EPO in the language of the proceedings and it can be assumed prima facie that such a translation submitted by the patent applicant himself accurately reflects the content of the international application in the language of the application. Third parties and the court may, when assessing the inadmissible extension, rely prima facie on the translation of the application submitted by the patent proprietor to the EPO and published by it. If the patent proprietor claims that this translation is incorrect, he must prove the inaccuracy.

IPPT20251002, UPC CoA, expert e-Commerce v Seoul Viosys
Revocation because of added matter (Article 138(1)(c) EPC). An inadmissible extension of the subject matter occurs if the subject matter of the granted claim extends beyond the content of the application as originally filed. In order to determine this, the court must first ascertain what information a person skilled in the art would immediately and unambiguously derive from the entirety of the application as filed, based on an objective assessment and with reference to the filing date, using their general technical knowledge. In this context, subject matter disclosed implicitly must also be regarded as part of the content, i.e. subject matter that clearly and unambiguously follows from what is expressly stated. If, as in this case, the patent has been derived from a divisional application, this requirement applies to each earlier application. 

IPPT20250214, UPC CoA, Abbott v Sibio
Not more likely than not that the patent contains added matter (Article 138(1)(c) EPC). In order to ascertain whether there is added matter, the Court must thus first ascertain what the skilled person would derive directly and unambiguously using his common general knowledge and seen objectively and relative to the date of filing, from the whole of the application as filed, whereby implicitly disclosed subject-matter, i.e. matter that is a clear and unambiguous consequence of what is explicitly mentioned, shall also be considered as part of its content. Where, as here, the patent is a divisional application, this requirement applies to each earlier application. The assessment of added matter cannot be restricted to only those parts of the original application which the patent proprietor indicated as a basis for an amended claim during the examination proceedings at the EPO, since a proper understanding of these parts also requires an assessment of their content in the context of the disclosure of the application as a whole. It is not required that a claim uses the exact same wording as used in the original application, as long as the skilled person would derive the combination of features from the whole application. 

UPC Court of First Instance

IPPT20260311, UPC CFI, LD Munich, NST v Qualcomm

Patent revoked and not infringed (Article 65 UPCA, Article 25 UPCA). Added matter in claim 1 and 5 .(Article 138 1(c)) The skilled person cannot infer directly and unambiguously that “network interface means” are coupled between the modules and the network, being structurally interposed between them. 

IPPT20260224, UPC CFI, CD Munich, UPM-Kymmene v International N&H

Patent revoked: lack of inventive step, added matter. (Article 56 EPC, Article 138(1)(c) EPC, Article 123(2) EPC) Technically relevant information - not derivable from the application as filed. 

IPPT20260211, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Canon v Katun
Patent valid and infringed. (Article 25 UPCA).VALIDITY. Counterclaim for revocation unfounded : No added matter (Article 138 EPC). The Court cannot identify any relevant differences between the new translations of claim 1 (from Japanese) and the application as filed. Even if considering only the pure wording, the translation does not necessarily lead to a different meaning. 

IPPT20260107, UPC CFI, CD Paris, Microsoft v Suinno 

European patent revoked (Article 65 UPCA)  Added subject matter (Article 138 EPC) . The removal or replacement of a feature is not considered added-subject matter if the feature is not described as being essential in the application. Any features which, even if mentioned throughout the application in the context of the invention, do not actually contribute to the solution of the technical problem are not essential features. Feature 1.2 : using several techniques of location simultaneously is not provided by the application which discloses the use of a single technique at a time , but not the three techniques or two of them at the same time.  Feature 1.4 : ranking involves a comparison between time-dependent and time-independent click-through rates , is not disclosed by the content of the application. The application only discloses that click through rates may be stored as a function of the location or the time of the query and, thus, not as a factor which is independent of these criteria. 

IPPT20251219, UPC CFI, LD Munich, GXB-Bio Corporation v Myriad
Patent revoked for added matter. (Article 138(1)(c) EPC, Article 65(2) UPCA) The skilled person does not directly and unambiguously derive from Claim 1, that the claimed method for quantifying an expression level of a target gene refers to a target gene “in a FFPE tissue sample of human breast cancer tissues” and that the endogenous reference gene for the normalisation of the target gene is OAZ1. Claim 25 refers to a method for quantifying an expression level of a target gene without mentioning that the target gene is “in a FFPE tissue sample of human breast cancer tissues”. Other claims also contain no indication that the method according to claim 25 refers to a method for quantifying an expression level of a target gene “in a FFPE tissue sample of human breast cancer tissues”.Nor can the person skilled in the art derive directly and unambiguously from the other disclosure content that this belongs to the invention.The application also does not clearly and unambiguously disclose that OAZ1 is used as the (sole) reference gene for normalizing the expression level of a target gene in a FFPE breast cancer sample. The disclosure of a feature as such is not sufficient. It is necessary that it be directly and unambiguously disclosed as belonging to the invention. No implicit disclosure can be assumed . It is not apparent that the expression stability of OAZ1 required for normalization is a clear and unambiguous consequence of what is explicitly mentioned. Subclaims 2 and 3 also extend beyond the content of the parental application as filed for the same reasons as claim 1.

IPPT20251218, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Polidoro v Bekaert
No added matter (Article 138(1)(c) EPC): same conclusion as the BoA of the EPO in the opposition decision regarding the patent-in-suit. Sufficient disclosure (Article 138(1)(b) EPC): Consistent with said claim construction, at least one way for carrying out the claimed premixed burner is disclosed, such that the persons skilled in the art can implement its structure and make routine calibrations to fit the number, shape and pattern of the disk holes to desired flow conditions at the inlet of the burner (reference to such calibration process is made in para. [0015] of the patent-in-suit). Therefore, the claimed configuration is sufficiently disclosed. 

IPPT20251128, UPC CFI, LD Munich, JingAo Solar v Chint
No added matter (Article 138(1)(c) EPC). Claim 1 does not contain features from different embodiments: Figure 8 shows all the features present in claim 1. No lack of enabling disclosure (Article 138(1)(b) EPC) in view of description and drawings. 

IPPT20251118, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, Advanced Cell Diagnostics v Molecular Instruments
No added matter (Article 138 (1)(c) EPC).The test for added matter is the same gold standard as set out for novelty. In order to assess whether there is added matter, the Court must first ascertain what the skilled person would derive directly and unambiguously using common general knowledge and seen objectively and relative to the date of filing, from the whole of the application as filed, whereby implicitly disclosed subject-matter, i.e. matter that is a clear and unambiguous consequence of what is explicitly mentioned, shall also be considered as part of its content. For feature 1(h), which teaches that the at least two capture probes hybridize to non-overlapping regions of the label probe, no expressis verbis basis can be found in the original application as filed. However, in all figures in which at least two capture probes bind to the label probe, this binding is to non-overlapping regions. For instance, from figure 4, replicated once more below, it can be derived that the binding/hybridisation of the L sections of the capture probe is to non-overlapping sections of the label probe LP. 

IPPT20251020, UPC CFI, CD Paris, Meril v Edwards Lifesciences

Invalidity because of added subject matter in claim 4, 7 and 8 (Article 76(1) EPC, Article 138(1)(c) EPC) the invalidity ground based upon Art. 76 (1) ‘EPC’ is considered well founded and the intermediate generalization concerning the omission of the claimed valve being a “heart” one unallowable. Accordingly, the patent cannot be maintained in the form as granted. 

IPPT20251010, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Motorola v Asustek
Counterclaim for revocation of a divisional patent succesful , on grounds of the invalidity of claims; infringement action dismissed. (Article 138 EPC , Rule 25 RoP, Article 25 UPCA). Inadmissible extension of the subject matter of claims 1 and 11. The parent application does not disclose, either explicitly or implicitly, the features of a first and second reconfiguration message as they appear cumulatively in claims 1 and 11. The essential feature of the patent is not found in claims 1 and 11, either literally or in essence.

IPPT20251010, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, HL Display v Black Sheep Retail
No added matter (Article 138(1)(c) EPC). Omission of the feature of a friction member, which has no inextricable link with the rest of the features of claim 1, does not add matter. 

IPPT20250801, UPC, CFI, LD Munich, Headwater v Samsung
Patent revoked because claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 10 and 35 are invalid due to an extension of subject matter (Article 138(1)(c) EPC, Article 123(2) EPC). On test for added matter UPC Court of Appeal, 14 February 2025, UPC_CoA_382/2024 (Abbott/Sibio),.  [...] it follows from the above principles set out by the Court of Appeal that the content of an application must not be considered to be a reservoir from which features pertaining to separate embodiments of the application could be combined in order to artificially create a particular embodiment which has not so been disclosed in the application as filed. This test essentially aligns with the long-standing case law of the EPO Boards of Appeal. No added matter for the mere reason that the original claims have been replaced entirely by a new claim set which is not based on the original (independent) claims. By omitting the feature of verifiability the claimed subject matter extends beyond the content of the application as filed. Also the combination of features as claimed is not originally disclosed. 

IPPT20250730, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Headwater Research v Samsung Electronics
Added matter (Article 138(1)(c) EPC, Article 76 EPC, Article 123(2) EPC). The criterion to determine whether a divisional application extends beyond the content of the parent application is the same as the one applied to determine whether an application contains added subject-matter with respect to the application as originally filed. When the Court has to decide on the merits, as it is case in the present instance, the standard to be used for assessing the presence of added subject-matter is the criterion of “beyond (reasonable) doubt”. Features 1.5.1 and 1.5.3.1 (resp. feature 1.5.3.2) are not disclosed in the earlier application as originally filed because, according to this application, the processor determines whether a network service usage activity is running in the background (resp. foreground), instead of whether a (first) device application is running in the background (resp. foreground), as claimed. The Court also finds that there is no API blocking access (features 1.5.2, 1.5.3) disclosed based on the determination that the application is running in the background. 

IPPT20250728, UPC CFI, CD Paris, Essetre Holding
No added subject-matter (Article 138(1)(c) EPC). Para. [0041] provides one example, which is shown in figs. 7, 8 and 9, and according to paras. [0049] and [0050] variants and technically equivalent elements to this example may be used. Feature (1.6.3) has a basis in para. [0041] which discloses that “Subsequently, or at the same time as the lateral retraction, the frames 17 and 18 rotate, pushed by the linear actuators 43 and 44, as in Figure 9, in order to face each other as in Figure 10”. 

IPPT20250721, UPC CFI, RD Nordic Baltic, Edwards v Meril
Added subject matter (Article 138(1)(c) EPC). Court is not convinced that there is an inextricable link between the indicia specified in claim 2 and the slot, or with any other unspecified features: omitting those features (e.g. a slot) does not represent an unallowable intermediate generalization. Added subject matter in independent claim 1 as well as dependent claims 7, 9, 10 and 10. 

IPPT20250721, UPC CFI, CD Paris, Sibio v Abott
No added matter (Article 138(1)(c) EPC). Strict compliance with the requirements of the gold standard in the context of the appraisal of added matter is of paramount importance for legal certainty. A patent proprietor should not be allowed to benefit from an unwarranted advantage by adding subject-matter not directly and unambiguously disclosed in the (earlier) application as filed, as third parties could then be confronted with claims extending beyond what they could legitimately expect when reviewing the original application.When a plurality of features taken from unrelated embodiments or from various lists of features in an original disclosure need to be combined to arrive at a claimed subject-matter, there may be added matter, in the absence of a clear pointer to the specific combination in the original disclosure. A prerequisite for any finding of added matter is that new technical information is presented to the skilled person. Under the ‘EPC’ and the ‘UPCA’, there is no requirement for literal support in the earlier application as filed, […] if the wording has been slightly modified, [but] the technical meaning remains the same. Added matter and intermediate generalisation. Intermediate generalisation is justified only in the absence of any clearly recognisable functional or structural relationship among the (imported and omitted) features of the specific combination. There is a so-called intermediate generalisation when a claimed subject-matter is obtained by importing one or more features from a certain embodiment in the original disclosure into a claim, while omitting one or more other features of this embodiment which were presented in combination with the imported feature(s) in the disclosure of this embodiment. An intermediate generalisation can be allowable or unallowable – in view of the prohibition of added matter – depending on the circumstances of the case. A mere allegation that there is a functional or structural relationship is not enough for the Court to conclude that there is an unallowable intermediate generalisation. On the contrary, a concrete explanation of an alleged functional or structural relationship, based on the content of the original disclosure, would be necessary.
 

IPPT20250529, UPC CFI, CD Paris, Lindal v Rocep-Lusol
Industrial applicability (Article 57 EPC) and insufficient disclosure (Article 83 EPC)(Article 138(1(a)(b) EPC). If an (alleged) invention would not comply with the generally accepted laws of physics falls within its scope because it cannot be used and therefore lacks industrial application. In such a situation, also the description would be insufficient to the extent that the applicant would not be able to describe how it could be made to work. claim 5 does not meet the criteria for industrial applicability under Articles 57 and 138 (1) (a) ‘EPC’ and must be considered as invalid. Since the application is addressed to the skilled person, it is neither necessary nor desirable to give details of well-known ancillary features. However, the description must disclose any feature essential for carrying out the invention in sufficient detail to make it apparent to the skilled person how to put the invention into practice without undue burden. (Article 83 EPC). 

IPPT20250528, UPC CFI, CD Paris, Aylo Premium v Dish Technologies 
Added matter claims 1 and 9 – inadmissible generalization (Article 138(1)(c) EPC). The Court holds that the parent application does not provide support for claiming “requesting the streamlets (212) of the highest quality one of the copies (204, 206, 208) determined sustainable at that time” as stated in feature 1.7. [emphasis added]. By introducing the term “highest” in the claim as granted, this feature includes embodiments in which direct “jumps” to the highest quality are possible and introduce an inadmissible generalization. Indeed, this implies assessing whether, at a certain time, several higher qualities would be sustainable, a determination that neither the flow diagram of Figure 7 nor the (embodiment in the corresponding) description of the parent application foresees or suggests. 

IPPT20250523, UPC LD Paris, Hurom v NUC
Dutch, French, German and Italian parts of European patent revoked as amended (Article 138(1) EPC, Article 65(2) UPCA); infringement claims concerning Poland admissible but dismissed as unfounded. No added matter amended claims (Article 138(1)(c) EPC). The allegation of NUC that no less than eight features are inextricably linked is unfounded, as NUC has not demonstrated such a link, and the skilled person would understand that, in describing an embodiment, features may be used to illustrate its working that are not necessarily an essential part of the invention. 

PPT20250513, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Sanofi v Amgen

Enabling disclosure (Article 83 EPC, Article 138(1)(b) EPC). It is the position of the Court that the subject-matter of a patent claim must be sufficiently disclosed in the patent as a whole, including the examples. It is the patent that has to demonstrate the workability of the claimed subject-matter. However, as the invention has to be disclosed sufficiently clear and complete for it to be carried out by the skilled person, the skilled person´s common general knowledge must also be taken into account when considering the question of sufficiency. In a case of a second medical use claim, the claimed “use”, which is based on a therapeutic effect, is part of the claim. Therefore, the use (including the therapeutic effect) has to be sufficiently (reproducibly) disclosed in the patent (as a whole). 

IPPT20250508, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Grundfos v Hefei

Enabling disclosure (Article 83 EPC). That the patent specification learns nothing regarding the design of means for connecting, does not relate to the feasibility, but at most to the clarity of the claim [Article 84 EPC], which is not a ground for invalidity within the meaning of Art. 138 EPC. 

IPPT20250410, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Yellow Sphere v Tabbert

Clarity of the claim (Article 84 EPC) is not a ground for invalidity within the meaning of Article 138 EPC.

IPPT20250404, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Edwards v Meril
Added matter in case of divisional applications (Article 138(c) EPC): Where the patent is a divisional application, this requirement applies to each earlier application. The Court of Appeal notes that the assessment of added matter cannot be limited to those parts of the original application which the patentee has indicated as the basis for an amended claim during the examination proceedings before the EPO, since a proper understanding of those parts also requires an assessment of their content in the context of the disclosure of the application as a whole. 

IPPT20250402, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Fujifilm v Kodak - II

No added matter when claim is construed properly: symbol “≤” is obvious erroneous in the light of the set of claims as granted and the patent specification. (Article 138(1)(c) EPC, Article 69 EPC). 

IPPT20250402, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Fujifilm v Kodak - I
No added matter (Article 138(1)(c) EPC). Any amendment to the parts of a European patent application or of a European patent relating to the disclosure (the description, claims, and drawings) can irrespective of the context of the amendment made, only be made within the limits of what a skilled person would derive directly and unambiguously, using common general knowledge, and seen objectively and relative to the date of filing, from the whole of the application(s) as filed. 

IPPT20250228, UPC CFI, CD Paris, NJOY v Juul Labs
Added matter (Article 138(1)(c) UPCA). Claimant has shown that there are differences between the basis of disclosure relied upon by the Defendant and the granted claim 1 that are to be considered for the patent to contain subject matter that extends beyond the content of the application as filed. As a consequence, it is Defendant’s burden of proof to show, that all the changes made to what he considers as a generic disclosure basis for granted claim 1 (the changes made to claim 159) do not result in the skilled person being presented with information which is not directly and unambiguously derivable from that previously presented by the application, even when account is taken of matter which is implicit to a person skilled in the art.

IPPT20250128, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Fujifilm v Kodak
Insufficient disclosure of the claimed invention over the complete scope of the granted claims. (Article 83 EPC, Article 138(2) EPC). As the features of the claims define the “invention” considered under Art. 138(1)b) EPC, a technical effect is to be taken into account in assessing sufficiency only if it is explicitly claimed. 

IPPT20250117, UPC CFI, CD Paris, NJOY Netherlands v Juul Labs
Patent revoked because of ‘added matter (Article 65 UPCA)(Article 138(1)(c) EPC). It extends beyond the content of the European Patent Application as filed (MWE 3) and beyond the content of the parent application (MWE 4). Especially, MWE 3 and MWE 4 do not specify that the heater is attached to a first end of the fluid storage compartment (features 1.4 and 11.5) in the way as this term needs to be understood by way of claim interpretation and do not specify that the mouthpiece is attached to a second end of the fluid storage compartment (features 1.5 and 11.6) in the way as this term needs to be understood by way of claim interpretation. Any claim that refers to the heater being attached to a first end of the fluid storage department and the mouthpiece being attached to a second end of the fluid storage compartment while not defining, that the heater encloses the first end of the fluid storage compartment and the mouthpiece encloses the second end of the fluid storage compartment results in the skilled person being presented with information, which is not directly and unambiguously derivable from that application as filed (MWE 3) and which is not directly and unambiguously derivable from the parent application MWE 4.

IPPT20241226, UPC CFI, CD Paris, Advanced Bionics v MED-EL
No insufficient disclosure (Article 83 EPC, Article 138(1)(b) EPC). Embodiment construed by the Claimants is not part of the subject-matter of the patent. On that basis, the Claimants objections with regard to insufficiency of disclosure are moot. The skilled person is deemed to possess the relevant ‘CGK’ and use it by reading the patent and implementing the embodiments. Therefore, this teaching should be clear to the skilled person and enable him/her to produce embodiments with a disc-shaped magnet rotatable in the plane of the coil housing parallel to the patient’s skin (and to the magnetic field of the MRI machine). Hence, the patent fulfils the sufficiency requirements under Article 83 EPC.

IPPT20241220, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Pohl-Boskamp v pharma-aktiva
No high probability that the patent is invalid. Not established with a high probability ((überwiegender Wahrscheinlichkeit) that the European patent does not disclose the invention in a manner sufficient for it to be carried out by a person skilled in the art (Article 138(1)(b) EPC). Same for lack of inventive step (Article 138(1)(a) EPC, Article 56(1) EPC).

IPPT20241211, UPC CFI, LD Paris, DexCom v Abbott
EP 282 revoked (Article 138(1)(c) EPC, Article 65(2) UPCA). Inadmissible new added matter ground for revocation raised in Rejoinder to the reply to the Statement of Defence inadmissible (R. 9.2 RoP). Added matter auxiliary requests (Article 138(1)(c) EPC) claim 1 according to the auxiliary requests extends the subject-matter of the European patent beyond the content of the earlier application as filed. “Whole-content approach” must be adopted in the present case to determine added matter. Question to be addressed is whether the skilled person considering claim 1 would be confronted with new technical information based on what was derivable, directly and unambiguously, from the whole contents of the description, claims and figures of WO 631.

IPPT20241122, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Panasonic v Guangdong OPPO
Given the interpretation of the patent claim (Article 69 EPC): The invention is sufficiently disclosed (Article 138(1)(b) EPC). 

IPPT20241105, UPC CFI, CD Paris, NJOY v Juul - I
EP 115 revoked. Added subject matter (Article 138(1)(c) EPC): No parts of the disclosure that would show the skilled person a preferred embodiment, in which the mouthpiece is affixed to a second end of the fluid storage compartment without enclosing the fluid storage compartment.

IPPT20241031, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Valeo Electrification v Magna
Strong rebuttable presumption that the registered patent proprietor is the material patent proprietor entitled to bring actions (Article 47(1) UPCA, Article 138(1)(e) EPC). In PI proceedings – in which only a “sufficient degree of certainty that the applicant is entitled to commence proceedings pursuant to article 47 UPCA” is required (R. 211(2) RoP) – this presumption can only be rebutted if the title is manifestly erroneous. At least not more likely than not that the patent is invalid on the basis of Article 138(1)(e) EPC: 

IPPT20240704, UPC CFI, LD Paris, DexCom v Abbott 
 Added subject-matter ((article 138(1)(c) EPC). No added subject matter: Omitting from claim 1 as granted features related to estimated analyte values allowable because the skilled person understands that the steps of calculating and transmitting estimated analyte values are distinct from receiving and sending portions of the data indicative of analyte levels. Added subject-matter in Auxiliary request 2:  there is no basis for a broadening or a generalisation to any use of the second protocol that would be suitable for achieving the effect of facilitating pairing.

IPPT20240619, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, Abbott v Sibio – EP283
Added matter under the so-called “gold standard” disclosure test of the Boards of Appeal of the EPO (article 138(1)(c) EPC). The Court applies the so-called “gold standard” disclosure test of the Boards of Appeal of the EPO for added matter (article 138(1)(c) EPC) which is also the standard used in many Contracting Member States of the UPC. Claim 1 appears to be the result of an unallowable intermediate generalization, at least relating to the omission of the presence of an elastomeric seal in the recess of the base portion of the enclosure (in feature 1.4). For intermediate generalization to be considered allowable (in the sense that it does not result in added matter), it should be (clearly) established that there is no structural and functional relationship between the omitted feature and the other features incorporated into the claim.