Article 69
Print this page1. The extent of the protection conferred by a European patent or a European patent application shall be determined by the claims. Nevertheless, the description and drawings shall be used to interpret the claims.
2. For the period up to grant of the European patent, the extent of the protection conferred by the European patent application shall be determined by the claims contained in the application as published. However, the European patent as granted or as amended in opposition, limitation or revocation proceedings shall determine retroactively the protection conferred by the application, in so far as such protection is not thereby extended.
Protocol on the Interpretation of Article 69 EPC
UPC Case Law:
UPC Court of Appeal
IPPT20260602, UPC CoA, Kodak v Fujifilm
Claim construction (Article 69 EPC). There is no general rule that the skilled person would always and automatically take into account fluctuations which are due to the manufacturing process and the measurement method and in doing so would automatically add deviations to the – as such precise – numerical value in a claim feature. This may be a result of claim interpretation but is not inherent to the use of a numerical value in a claim.
IPPT20260417, UPC CoA, Abbott v Sinocare
Claim construction (Article 69 EPC). Claim 1 only requires that the monitored glucose levels and the event data icons are included in the same timeline graph. The claim does not require both to be in the same area of the graph or within a certain range of one another.
IPPT20260330, UPC CoA, Sinocare v Abbott
Definition of skilled person is a question of law (Article 56 EPC). The definition of a skilled person is a question of law, not a statement of fact. Claim construction (Article 69 EPC. R. 171.2 RoP). Claim construction is a matter of law, not a matter of fact […]. R. 171.2 RoP is therefore not applicable here. In general, a claim is not limited to the embodiments described in the patent. Embodiments are included in the patent description to explain and clarify the claimed invention, not to limit the claim to the specifics of the described embodiment.
IPPT20260327, UPC CoA, Onward v Niche
Claim interpretation (Article 69 UPCA). Even though not linked by the word ‘and’ the pattern as claimed requires both (at least one) spatial component and (at least one) temporal component to be present. However, the mention of both components, the use of the word ‘comprise’ and the clause in feature 6.2 relating to the temporal component, which refers to the previously described (at least one) spatial component, make it clear that both components are essential for characterising a design.”
IPPT20260327, UPC CoA, NUC v Hurom
Functional claim interpretation “housing longitudinally fixed to an upper side of drive unit, so as to […]” (Article 69 EPC). According to the wording of the claim, the feature according to which the housing has to be longitudinally fixed to an upper side of the drive unit shall be considered in conjunction with the specified function claimed therein, [...]. It follows that the longitudinal fixation of the housing to an upper side of the drive unit not only requires the housing to be assembled or positioned in a longitudinal direction. It further requires, unlike assessed by the CFI (impugned decision, para. 76), that the fixation prevents vertical lifting of the housing or the screw against the drive unit, thus encompassing a fixation against vertical lifting.
IPPT20260217, UPC CoA, Rematec v Europe Forestry
Claim interpretation (Article 69 EPC). Insufficient that implementation of the orientation required by feature 1d could theoretically take place, but in fact does not. Actual implementation is decisive (as confirmed by description and drawings). The assumption made by the Court of First instance runs counter to the fact that, under that assumption, the essentially radial orientation of the feed-in and discharge required by feature 1d would be rendered ineffective, thereby depriving essential functional aspects of the feature of their meaning. The term “essentially” indicates that the orientation of the feed-in and discharge to be enabled does not depend on a strictly geometrical understanding; sufficient to enable a configuration in which the grist is fed in and discharged in a direction that is more radial than tangential.
IPPT202511225, UPC CoA, Amgen v Sanofi & Regeneron
Claim Interpretation main claim (Article 69 EPC). If a dependent claim is only adding an additional feature that does not provide a more specific description of the features of the main claim, it generally argues against the possibility of drawing conclusions about the interpretation of the main claim from this dependent claim. Claim interpretation medical use claim (Article 69 EPC). For ‘medical use-format’ claims, it is an inherent claim feature that the claimed product must be objectively suitable for the claimed use, i.e. be therapeutically effective. The implicit requirement that the claimed antibodies must be effective as a medicament for the treatment or prevention of the diseases mentioned in the claim means that not any lowering of cholesterol levels, let alone any binding of PCSK9 to LDLR as Respondents argue, suffices. A therapeutic effect requires that the claimed treatment causes a noticeable improvement of the medical condition of the patient suffering from the disease mentioned in the claim. […] the treatment must be meaningful. That the skilled person does not derive any minimum required effect from the claim or the description does not lead to another conclusion, since the feature of therapeutic effect does not follow from the claim language that is to be interpreted, but from the use of the medical use claim format.
IPPT20251125, UPC CoA, Meril v Edwards
Claim construction (Article 69 EPC). As a general rule, a product or process presented as an embodiment by the patent specification may be considered covered by the patent claims. However, there is room for an exception where the patent as a whole clearly teaches the person skilled in the art that the disclosed embodiment is not claimed, e.g. when it only illustrates a technical specification that is not addressed by the teaching of the patent claim.
IPPT20251107, UPC CoA, OTEC v STEROS
Claim construction feature 1.2 (Article 69 EPC). When considering an emulsion as the non-conductive fluid under feature 1.2, the electrical conductivity of the overall emulsion shall be assessed, not that of each ingredient of the emulsion. Although claim 1 of the patent does not set the specific details on the configuration of the non-conductive fluid under feature 1.2, the description under the general heading [...] citly refers to non-conductive fluids based on emulsified systems as one type of non-conductive fluid [0088]. Experimental data not disclosed in the patent specification are, as a general rule, not relevant to the interpretation of the patent claims. Person skilled in the art would understand that the non-conductivity of the non-conductive fluid matters only after it has been combined with the polymeric particles and conductive solution in the percentages by mass as indicated in Table 1 to become the electrolytic medium protected as final product in patent claim 1.
IPPT20251003, UPC CoA, Belkin v Philips
Claim constructian (Article 69 EPC). Statements made by the applicant during the grant proceedings may be regarded as an indication of the understanding of a person skilled in the art on the filing date […]. However, as the Local Chamber correctly assumed, no other understanding can be inferred from Philips’ statements in the grant proceedings.
IPPT20250430, UPC CoA, Insulet v EOFlow
Claim interpretation is a matter of law (Article 69 EPC). The Court cannot leave the judicial task of interpreting the patent claim to an expert but has to construe the claim independently. The skilled person is a notional entity that cannot be equated with any real person in the technical field of the invention. The decisive factor is not the individual knowledge and abilities of a person, but rather the general specialist knowledge that is customary in the relevant field of technology, as well as the average knowledge, experience, and abilities in this specialist field. It is for the Court, not the expert, to assess these circumstances.
IPPT20250304, UPC CoA, Sumi Agro v Syngenta
Claim construction – core of the invention (Article 69 EPC). Claim construction relating to feature c is derived from an understanding of the core of the invention, and from a close reading of paras 28 through 31 of the patent specification, together with examples 1 and 2. Claim features must be interpreted in light of the claim as a whole and the claim must be interpreted in light of the specification as a whole. Product claims confer protection to all processes for making that product. The skilled person will look at the teaching of the specification as a whole when reading the claim, rather than singling out a specific composition and draw conclusions based on separate aspects of the invention as described in the patent specification. In particular examples cannot generally be understood as limiting the scope of the claim. The core of the invention is that fatty acids can significantly chemically stabilise HPPD-inhibiting herbicides in herbicidal compositions (see above). Feature c covers a plurality of FFAs. This stems from the wording “at least one…” and finds support in para 26 of the patent specification. The 1 % to 95 % by weight can consequently include the combination of several different FFAs.
IPPT20250214, UPC CoA, Abbott v Sibio
Claim interpretation (Article 69 EPC). As a general principle of interpretation, means-plus-function features must be understood as any feature suitable for carrying out the function. As an exception to the mentioned general principle, where the function is carried out by a computer or similar apparatus, the means-plus-function features are interpreted as means adapted to carry out the respective steps/functions.
IPPT20241220, UPC CoA, Alexion Pharmaceuticals v Amgen
Claim construction (Article 69 EPC). A linguistic error, a spelling mistake or any other inaccuracy in a patent claim can only be corrected by way of interpretation of the patent claim if the existence of an error and the precise way to correct it are sufficiently certain to the average skilled person on the basis of the patent claim, taking into account the description and the drawings and using common general knowledge. The Court of Appeal can leave open the question of whether the average skilled person, in the context of claim interpretation, can be expected to consult catalogues and databases to check how a perceived error in the claim should be corrected. Even if the average skilled person would do so, it would not be sufficiently certain that the signal peptide consists of 22 amino acids for the following reasons. Alexion’s assertion during the grant proceedings, and in particular the TBA’s endorsement thereof, can be seen as an indication of the view of the person skilled in the art at the filing date.
IPPT20241203, UPC CoA, SharkNinja v Dyson
Claim construction feature 1.3: “cyclonic separating apparatus” (Article 69 EPC). The patent specification does not define what a cyclonic separating apparatus is. The Court of Appeal, as a first step, agrees with Dyson’s view that cyclonic separating apparatus is a functional claim element as understood by the skilled person at the priority date.
IPPT20241121, UPC CoA, OrthoApnea
Not every new argument constitutes an “amendment of a case” (R. 263 RoP). An amendment of the case in the sense of R. 263 RoP only occurs when the nature and scope of the dispute changes such as through the introduction of a new patent or objection to a new product. A new basis for infringement (such as equivalence) merely concerns the extent of protection conferred under the art. 69 EPC and the corresponding protocol.
IPPT20240925, UPC CoA, Mammut v Ortovox
Claim construction (article 69 EPC). The claim is not only the starting point but the decisive basis for determining the extent of the protection conferred by the European patent. The interpretation of a claim is not to be based solely on its literal and linguistic meaning, but the description and drawings must always be consulted as aids to interpretation and not only to remedy any lack of clarity in the claim. This does not mean, however, that the claim serves only as a guideline and that its subject-matter extends to what is revealed as the patent proprietor's request for protection after examination of the description and drawings. The patent claim is to be interpreted from the perspective of the person skilled in the art. The local chamber correctly considered a graduate engineer or master's degree in electrical engineering from a university of applied sciences or a university of applied sciences and several years of professional experience in the development and construction of LVS devices to be such a person skilled in the art.
IPPT20240513, UPC CoA, VusionGroup v Hanshow
Claim features must always be interpreted in the light of the claim as a whole (Article 69 EPC). These features teach the skilled person that the chip and antenna of the radio frequency device should not be placed in the same location in or on the case.
IPPT20240226, UPC CoA, Nanostring v 10x Genomics II
Claim interpretation (article 69 EPC, Interpretation Protocol). The UPC Court of Appeal proceeds from the following principles in accordance with Art. 69 of the Convention on the Grant of European Patents (EPC) and the Protocol on its Interpretation. The patent claim is not only the starting point, but the decisive basis for determining the protective scope of a European patent. The interpretation of a patent claim does not depend solely on the strict, literal meaning of the wording used (see also the German and French language versions of the Protocol on Interpretation: “aus dem genauen Wortlaut der Patentansprüche”, “sens étroit et litéral du texte des revendications”). Rather, the description and the drawings must always be used as explanatory aids for the interpretation of the patent claim and not only to resolve any ambiguities in the patent claim. However, this does not mean that the patent claim merely serves as a guideline and that its subject-matter also extends to what, after examination of the description and drawings, appears to be the subject-matter for which the patent proprietor seeks protection. The patent claim is to be interpreted from the point of view of a person skilled in the art. In applying these principles, the aim is to combine adequate protection for the patent proprietor with sufficient legal certainty for third parties. These principles for the interpretation of a patent claim apply equally to the assessment of the infringement and the validity of a European patent. This follows from the function of the patent claims, which under the European Patent Convention serve to define the scope of protection of the patent under Art. 69 EPC and thus the rights of the patent proprietor in the designated Contracting States under Art. 64 EPC, taking into account the conditions for patentability under Art. 52 to 57 EPC (see EPO EBA, 11 December 1989, G 2/88, OJ 1990, 93 para. 2.5).
UPC Court of First Instance
IPPT20260423, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Quantificare v Canfield
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.
IPPT20260421, UPC CFI, LD Milan, Dainese v Alpinestars
No infringement (Article 25 UPCA, Article 69 EPC). Not all regions that are not occupied by the airbag are second regions within the definition given in claim 1. […]. The Court agrees with the Defendants that the second region cannot be negligible, as already assessed on claim interpretation [...]. It must be sufficient to allow ventilation when the airbag is deflated, and that the airbag expands into this region when it inflates; this is, after all, the invention.
IPPT20260311, UPC CFI, LD Munich, BFexaQC v NVIDIA
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.
IPPT20260219, UPC CFI, LD Vienna, Messerle v Sabert
Patent valid and not infringed. (Article 65 UPCA, Article 25 UPCA) Claim interpretation on the basis of the language of the patent (German) (Article 69 EPC, Article 70 (1) EPC). Although the language of the proceedings is English, interpretation and considerations are based on the German text of the patent and the English translations of the claims are read similarly. The German term “Knick” as used in the German language version of claim 1 is understood by the person skilled in the art as a portion of the claimed packaging that is created by folding of card- or paperboard along a predefined folding line, causing in the folded state a visible sharp crease at the interface of two walls or wall-shaped portions of the packaging. Claimant’s argument that a bending radius cannot be used as clear distinction between the English terms “bend” and “fold” […] does not lead to a different result.
IPPT20260212, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Align v Angelalign
Preliminary injunction granted . (Article 62(1) UPCA , Rule 209 RoP, Rule 211 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).
IPPT20260211, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Canon v Katun
Patent valid and infringed. (Article 25 UPCA). INFRINGEMENT. The challenged embodiments directly infringe the patent by making literal use of the teaching of claim 1. (Article 25 UPCA, Article 69 EPC, Protocol on the interpretation of Article 69 )The infringement is challenged only with regard to feature 1.1 and based on their interpretation of claim 1 as a system claim requiring a developer receiving apparatus. From the Court’s interpretation of claim 1, the developer receiving apparatus itself, and the printer or parts of it, are not subject of claim 1. Claim 1 states that the developer supply container is ‘mountable’ to a developer receiving apparatus. The skilled person will understand this to mean that the parts of the developer receiving apparatus named in feature 1.1 — the developer receiving portion, the receiving opening and the supported portion — are not claimed to be present.
IPPT20260112, UPC CFI, CD Paris, WhiteWater v American Wave
Decision by default (Rule 355 RoP). Patent partially revoked (Article 65 UPCA). Claim interpretation (Article 69 EPC) Feature 4 of claim 1; “valve structure (24, 26, 28): The language of feature 4 makes clear that only two valves are mandatory, a gas supply valve (26) and a vent valve (28). This is confirmed by the patent specification. Interpreting feature 3 of claim 1 using dependent claim 3: Although claim 3 is not subject to this revocation action, its dependency on claim 1 implies that claim 1 encompasses embodiments where the controller is partly located at the facility and partly at a remote location.
IPPT20251210, UPC CFI, LD Dusseldorf, MAS Maschinen v Altech
Claim interpretation – Statement of purpose (Article 69 EPC). The claim that a device is intended “for the continuous filtering of impurities from a plastic melt” constitutes a statement of purpose. The device must therefore be designed in such a way that it is suitable for the continuous filtering of impurities from a plastic melt.
IPPT20251205, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Roche v Menarini
Claim construction (Article 69 EPC). Interpretation […] has no basis in the claim from a purely linguistic point of view, nor can the skilled person derive any indication of this from the rest of the specification. Not relevant at this point whether the prosecution history must be taken into consideration when interpreting the claims. Product claim. The method by which the protected product is manufactured is in principle, irrelevant. […]. The situation would be different only if the patent specification provided indications that the method of manufacture is reflected in certain properties of the product, or that the claimed properties can be achieved only by a very specific method.
IPPT20251118, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, Advanced Cell Diagnostics v Molecular Instruments
Claim Interpretation (Article 69 EPC, Interpretation Protocol). Feature 1(h): No literal infringement: It follows from the strict, literal wording of the claim that the term “non-overlapping” is to be interpreted as not allowing any kind of overlap. This literal interpretation is confirmed when considering the teaching of the patent specifications.
IPPT20251022, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, Abbott Diabetes v Sinocare
Claim interpretation - the feature that ‘(...) the timeline graph includes event data icons (318)’ - equivalents (Article 69 EPC). More likely than not that this feature requires the event data icons to be displayed on the timeline graph itself, i.e. in case the timeline graph screen has several panels, this feature teaches that the data icons must be displayed on the panel showing the timeline graph. It is important to note that UP 471 focuses specifically on the layout of the display for the receiver unit of a glucose monitoring system. In fact, the layout of the display is the main teaching of the patent, describing and claiming the layout of the display with/in great detail. A difference in the layout of the display is therefore meaningful and can be a key point, even though another layout may have the same function. No infringement because the event data icons are not included in the timeline graph.
IPPT20251020, UPC CFI, CD Paris, Meril v Edwards Lifesciences
Claim construction (Article 69 EPC).Claimants’ interpretation of “outer skirt” is inconsistent with the only detailed embodiment disclosed in the patent, wherein – see in particular Fig. 42 and para. [0063] – the suture line between the outer skirt (18) and the inner skirt (16) appears located (slightly) within the inner space defined by the frame. The definition of “slack” as implying excess material is disclosed in the patent and consistent with the general meaning of the term.
IPPT20251010, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, HL Display v Black Sheep Retail
Claim construction (Article 69 EPC). Claim not limited to one specific embodiment, in the absence of clear indications to the contrary. For example, under the section ‘detailed description of embodiments’ (plural) in the patent, par. [0047], clearly describes several embodiments.
IPPT20250911, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, Washtower v Wasombouw
Claim interpretation, equivalence and infringement (Article 69 EPC, Article 2 Protocol) A. Features 1.7-1.8: plate like support means for transmitting vertical forces. The claim recites that one or more plate-like means should support the carrier. It can therefore also be just one. […]. The purpose of the support means is that it transmits vertical forces in a meaningful way. B. Group of features 1.9 concerning a retaining member in the form of an L-shaped strip made of metal.
IPPT20250829, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, City Glass v Maars
Patent not infringed (Article 25 UPCA, Article 69 EPC). The allegedly infringing products do not meet features 1.4 and 1.6 as interpreted above. […]. It is not necessary to decide on equivalent infringement of feature 1.4 because also feature 1.6 is not present in the Horizon products.
IPPT20250822, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Brita v Aquashield
As is usually the case, the purpose specified in the claim (Article 69 EPC) defines the protected subject matter in such a way that it must be objectively suitable for interacting with the valve in accordance with features 1a and 1b of claim 1. This is because it has not been argued or is otherwise apparent that valves other than those corresponding to features 1a and 1b do not exist or are not technically conceivable.
IPPT20250801, UPC CFI, LD Paris, NJ Diffusion v Gisela Mayer
Claim scope imited to only the claimed edge-tot-edge method (Article 69 EPC). The patent itself describes two distinct modes of implementation (0024 and 0028), and a person skilled in the art will understand in the context of the patent that ‘edge to edge’ is distinct from ‘superimposition’. It is irrelevant that the descriptive part still refers to the superimposed embodiment; what matters is the scope of protection as defined by the claims, which are expressly limited to ‘edge to edge’. The Court also notes that the addition of the words ‘placed edge to edge’ in claim 1 should have led, at the time of grant of the patent, to the removal of the ‘superimposed’ embodiment of the invention mentioned in the description, as this embodiment does not fall within the scope of protection of the patent as finally claimed.
IPPT20250731, UPC CFI, RD Nordic-Baltic, Texport v Sioen
Claim construction (Article 69 EPC). Claim element (layer 5) “the knitted material consists of a waffle structure” : there is no basis at all for concluding that the person skilled in the art would interpret the term waffle structure in the Patent as being limited to knitted fabrics that that have been created by the specific knitting technology mentioned in the ISO standard. The Court concludes that the term waffle structure in claim 1 shall not be understood as limiting the scope of the Patent to fabric structures that comprise a knitted fabric that looks the same on both sides, or where the waffle structure is created by a specific knitting technology. Instead, the feature waffle structure means that the knitted fabric shall have a three-dimensional structure with recesses/hollows between walls/ridges, thereby giving a cellular/latticed/grid-like appearance on at least one side.
IPPT20250728, UPC CFI, CD Paris, Essetre Holding
Claim constriction: patent’s own lexicon (Article 69 EPC). The Court considers that according to the ordinary meaning of the wording in common language as well as in the context of the description and the drawings of the patent, the term “a working surface” is to be interpreted as meaning “one working surface”. In this regard it is worth noting that the term “working surface” does not imply that the surface is planar but can also have other shapes including a folded shape.
IPPT20250722, UPC CFI, CD Milan, Eoflow v Insulet
The terms of the patent must be interpreted according to their principal functional meaning, bearing in mind the language used in the patent itself (patent’s own lexicon) (Article 69 EPC). When interpreting a patent claim, the person skilled in the art does not apply a philological understanding, but determines the technical meaning of the terms used with the aid of the description and the drawings. From the function of the individual features in the context of the patent claim as a whole, it must be deduced which technical function these features have individually and as a whole. The patent description may represent a patent’s own lexicon.
IPPT20250721, UPC CFI, RD Nordic Baltic, Edwards v Meril
Claim construction (Article 69 EPC). The importance of the patent claims means, inter alia, that a narrowing interpretation of the claims which deviates from the broader general understanding of the terms used therein by the person skilled in the art, can only be permitted in exceptional cases.
IPPT20250708, UPC CFI, CD Milan, Maschio Gaspardo v Spiridonakis Bros
Claim interpretation (Article 69 EPC). The patent description generally presents the patent’s “lexicon”. When identical terms are used in a claim, they generally have the same meaning. However, 'claim language' does not forbid the use of different words for identical parts of a tool. It is only for certain parts of a device addressed in the claim that different terms are used.
IPPT20250616, UPC CFI, LD Hamburg, Steros v Otec
Claim interpretation – skilled person (Article 69 EPC): the skilled person is taking the purpose of every patent claim into account, to provide the average person skilled in the art with a technical teaching which, when reworked, leads to the intended success of the invention.
IPPT20250616, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, 10x Genomics v Curio Bioscience
Mere use of subclaims as additional arguments at the oral hearing to support a previous position taken by Claimant is not considered late (R. 263 RoP, Article 69 EPC). As claim construction is a matter of law and the Court must independently construe the claims, and as the construction of feature 1.6. was in dispute between the parties anyway. Claim interpretation: embodiments and subclaims as examples of the invention (Article 69 EPC). If several embodiments are presented in the description as being in accordance with the invention, the terms used in the claim are to be understood, in case of doubt, as meaning that all embodiments can be used to fulfil them. The same applies for subclaims, which do not normally narrow the scope of the main claim. They merely demonstrate possibilities for its design, which may offer an additional advantage. Claim interpretation: a statement of purpose in the claim (Article 69 EPC) usually serve to improve understanding of the invention and as a rule have the indirect effect of defining the subject matter protected by the patent in such a way that it must not only fulfil the spatial-physical features, but must also be designed to be usable for the purpose stated in the claim. Extent of protection – burden of proof of non-infringement (Article 69 EPC, R. 171 RoP). It is for the Defendant to work out in each case in relation to the individual features of the claim, how specifically the technical design of the challenged embodiment differs in each case from the description in the article and to explain why this is relevant for the question of infringement. Extent of protection – enabling disclosure (Article 69 EPC, Article 83 EPC). Even if the claim does not specify the more detailed technical design of the surface structure of the array at the time of release, the presence of an array in the aforementioned sense, from the surface of which the release takes place, remains necessary.
IPPT20250606, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Tiroler Rohre v SSAB
Extent of protection (Article 69 EPC); infringement (Article 25 UPCA); Injunction (Article 63 UPCA): If a device has the required suitability, it is irrelevant whether the characteristics and effects specified in the patent are achieved regularly, only in exceptional cases or only by chance, and whether the user intends to achieve these effects. It is sufficient that the groove base present in the contested embodiments is potentially suitable for receiving the front end of a pile end.
IPPT20250508, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Grundfos v Hefei
Claim interpretation of “Umschalten" (Article 69 EPC). The fact that the contested patent is also based on this understanding is already clear from the English version of the patent claim (which is not decisive for the scope of protection, however).
IPPT20250430, UPC CFI, CD Paris, Kinexon v Ballinno
Interpretation of main claim, dependant claims and embodiments (Article 69 EPC). Claim feature not limited to football or offside detection. A broad, general term used in the main claim is not to be limited to an understanding corresponding to the more specific or narrower features used in a dependant claim. Instead, the dependant claim merely indicates possible embodiments of the patented invention, which may be linked to additional advantages. Embodiments generally serve to describe options for realizing the invention and therefore do not generally permit a restrictive interpretation of a more general patent claim. Embodiments mentioned in the patent description only permit the conclusion that they fall under the claim; they do not restrict the scope of the patent claim.
IPPT20250430, UPC CFI, LD Hamburg, AGFA v Gucci
Claim construction (Article 69 EPC). Patent as “own lexicon”: The Court construes the feature “achromatic” according to the definition given in the description in para. [0021] of the patent based on the principle that a patent may be used as its “own lexicon”. Specifications in the description that are not consistent with the granted claims cannot serve as a basis of a broad interpretation of a claim: Claimant deleted the term “chromatic colour” from claim 1 in order to distinguish it from US 2010/233441A1. […].
IPPT20250424, UPC CFI, LD Paris, Seoul Viosys v Laser Components
Claim interpretation (Article 69 EPC) The term ‘contact electrode’ is not limited to an ‘ohmic contact’. Most importantly, claim 1 of the patent is silent on the requirement for ohmic contact. Even if ohmic electrodes are the simplest, ohmic contact is not the only option, since an LED chip could also work with a Schottky-type current. Furthermore, the term ‘contact electrode’ as mentioned in the French language is merely a translation of the original English version ‘contact electrode’, which could also have been translated as ‘electrode in contact’ and does not mean that this electrode is dedicated to a specific contact such as ohmic contact.
IPPT20250410, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Yellow Sphere v Tabbert
Product-by-process claim interpretation (Article 69 EPC)Such claims are characterised by the fact that the technical content of the invention does not normally consist in the process as such, but in the technical characteristics conferred on the product by the process. The decisive factor is therefore how the skilled person understands the information on the manufacturing method and what conclusions he draws from this for the inventive nature of the object. However, if the manufacturing process leads to properties in the product that can only be achieved in this way and whose presence can be detected in the finished product, the patent is ultimately limited to products that can be manufactured in this way. What is decisive is whether the patent specification provides any indications that justify the conclusion that the use of the process described in feature group 2 is necessary for technical reasons in order to achieve certain features of the product.
IPPT20250404, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Edwards v Meril
Claim construction (Article 69 EPC). Emphasised that a narrowing construction of a broader claim language ("Auslegung unterhalb des Wortlauts") on the basis of the description or drawings should only be allowed in exceptional cases.
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).
IPPT20250307, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Tridonic v Cupower
No infringement because of lacking claim feature (article 69 EPC)
IPPT20250221, UPC CFI, LD Hamburg, Teleflex Life Sciences v Speed Care
Claim interpretation (Article 69 EPC). Additionally, the skilled person is taking the purpose of every patent claim into account, to provide the average person skilled in the art with a technical teaching which, when reworked, leads to the intended success of the invention.
IPPT20250219, UPC CFI, LD Hamburg, Lionra v Cisco
Claim construction (Article 69 EPC). Interpretation of a patent whose purpose is to overcome the time delay, known as latency, in the processing of data packets and, in particular, headers during transmission in a wireless network. The description and drawings must always be consulted as explanatory aids for interpreting the patent claim and not only used to resolve any ambiguities in the patent claim. However, this does not mean that the patent claim merely serves as a guideline and that its subject matter also extends to what, after examination of the description and drawings, appears to be the protection sought by the patent proprietor.
IPPT20250128, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Fujifilm v Kodak
Claim interpretation (Article 69 EPC, Protocol). The terms used in a claim should be given their broadest technically sensible meaning in the context of the claim in which they appear. A narrowing interpretation of the claims (“Auslegung unterhalb des Wortlauts”) based on the description or drawings should generally not be permitted. convincing reasons based on the circumstances of the individual case in question required.
IPPT20250117, UPC CFI, LD Brussels, OrthoApnea
The assessment of the scope of protection of a patent is in two stages (Article 69 EPC, Interpretation Protocol). In the first stage, the literal infringement must be assessed on the basis of the characteristics of the patent in the light of the interpretation of the claims. In a second stage, if it is judged that no literal infringement can be assumed and provided that this is invoked, the infringement will be assessed by equivalence. No literal infringement (Article 69 EPC). In the NOA the closing of the mouth is not further prevented (or limited) by a ‘stop’ and ‘contact surface’ in the sense of claim 1. No infringement by equivalence (Article 2, Interpretation Protocol). In the absence of technically functional equivalence, irrespective of the test used (the ‘function-way-result’ test or the ‘insubstantial differences’ test), there can be no infringement because of equivalence. In NOA, the connecting elements (and the corresponding parts of the elements) do not have this function, which is to prevent the mouth from closing any further. In NOA, the complete closure of the mouth is prevented by the upper and lower parts of the device coming together. In this case, it is not the coupling elements that have the function of preventing further closing of the mouth, but the upper and lower parts in the occlusal plane.
IPPT20250117, UPC CFI, CD Paris, NJOY Netherlands v Juul Labs
Claim interpretation “the heater is attached to a first end of the FSC” and “the mouthpiece is attached to a second of the FSC” Article 69 EPC). Skilled person understands from the description and drawings that the term “to a first end of the FSC” in the term “attached to a first end of the FSC” defines the location where the heater is after having being attached rather than being a reference to an existing (part of an) object to which the heater is affixed. Similar to feature 1.4, using the description and the drawings as explanatory aids for the interpretation of the patent claim, the skilled person understands that the term “to a second end of the FSC” in the term “attached to a second end of the FSC” defines the location of the free end of the mouthpiece that is intended to be inserted into the user’s mouth to be at a second end of the FSC. Taking the description and the drawings as explanatory aids for the interpretation of the patent claim, in the features 1.4 and 1.5 both references to “end of the fluid storage compartment” (first end of the fluid storage compartment; second end of the fluid storage compartment) need to be interpreted and are interpreted in a similar way, in order to be in line with the description. The need to apply this interpretation to two individual features in the same way reinforces the interpretation for the respective one of the two features.
IPPT20250115, UPC CFI, LD Vienna, Swarco v Strabag
No (definitional) limitation of the skilled person’s understanding of the term ‘converging lens’ (Article 69 EPC). Neither the description nor the US patent support a limitation of feature M4 or the understanding of the skilled person that only spherical collecting lenses are to be covered by the patent in suit. […] the skilled person understands the term ‘converging lens’ to mean not only (restrictively) a spherical lens, but also an aspherical lens. A converging lens must be able to focus light at a focus point of the lens. For this technical function, it is not absolutely necessary for the lens to be perfectly spherical (see the remarks in 2.3.2 on the characteristic M10). According to the description of the patent in suit, a diffusing structure or surface is to be understood – contrary to the defendant's view – not as part of the light-conducting rod, but as an optically effective structure in the area of the converging lens (5) (see [0054] and also [0053] and Figure 4 / feature M13).
IPPT20241211, UPC CFI, LD Paris, DexCom v Abbott
Claim interpretation (Article 69 EPC). The skilled person is a group of persons, comprising persons skilled in the field of (physiological) analyte monitoring systems (such as Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM)) and persons skilled in the art of designing portable electronic systems, who are also familiar with the communication and data processing techniques involved in such systems. Strict literal interpretation of claim features relating to “the rules and the setting” in the present case (Article 1, Interpretation Protocol). Deviating from the wording of the claim would in the present case to the detriment of third parties not combine adequate protection for the patent proprietor with sufficient legal certainty for third parties.
IPPT20241125, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Häfele v Kunstsoff
Claim interpretation (Article 69 EPC). In principle, the meaning of a dependent claim can contribute to the correct interpretation of the main claim. Dependent claims regularly do not narrow the subject matter of the main claim, but merely show – possibly in connection with an additional advantage – possibilities for its realisation, no differently than in the form of examples. In principle, the prosecution history does not constitute admissible interpretative material. A European patent cannot be interpreted on the basis of text passages that were deleted from the description during the grant procedure. At best, statements by the applicant or the granting authority to understand the feature of a patent claim to be interpreted could be regarded as an expert opinion.
IPPT20241122, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Panasonic v Guangdong OPPO
Given the interpretation of the patent claim (Article 69 EPC): The patent is valid, revocation dismissed. No added subject matter (Article 138(1)(c) EPC. Priorities are validly claimed (Article 87 EPC). The invention is sufficiently disclosed (Article 138(1)(b) EPC). The patent involves an inventive step (Article 56 EPC) Attack solely based on incorrect interpretation of the claim.
IPPT20241122, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, Plant-e v Arkyne
Scope of protection (Article 69 EPC and the Protocol) assessed in two steps as seems to be common ground in most contracting member states (including France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, The Netherlands). In a first step, ‘literal’ infringement of the features of (claim 11 of) the patent in view of the claim construction is evaluated. In case claim 11 of the patent is not judged to be literally infringed, equivalence is assessed in a second step. Equivalence (Article 2 Protocol) involves assessing whether, in the perception of the skilled person, the claims, read in the light of the description and drawings, leave room for equivalents, given, on the one hand, equitable protection for the patentee and, on the other hand, a reasonable degree of legal certainty for third parties. A variation is equivalent to an element specified in the claim if the following four questions are answered in the affirmative: [...]
IPPT20241113, UPC CFI, LD Paris, HP v Lama
Claim construction in language of the patent (Article 69 EPC). Appropriate in French language proceedings to examine all arguments raised in relation to the interpretation of the patent with reference to the patent application as filed in English. No need to apply national law regarding acts of infringement occurring before 1 June 2023 (Article 25 and 26 UPCA). In the territories of the Contracting States that signed the UPCA of 20 June 2013, the acts referred to in Articles 25 and 26 UPCA were already considered to be infringements qualified as acts of infringement by European patent law (Article 69 EPC) or in the national laws of those States that were harmonised by Directive 2004/48/EC of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights relating to infringements of existing European patents.
IPPT20241031, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Sodastream v Aarke
Claim construction (Article 69 EPC). Skilled person will not stop at the literal meaning of a feature but will determine the meaning of the word ”flask“ in the context of the patent claim as a whole. In doing so, the skilled person will turn to the technical function of the flask given by the individual feature and in the context of the other features. The description and the drawings may show that the patent specification defines terms independently and in this respect may represent a patent´s own lexicon. The claim must not be limited to the scope of preferred embodiments. The scope of a claim extends to subject-matter that the skilled person understands as the patentee's claim after interpretation using the description and drawings. A claim interpretation which is supported by the description and drawings as a whole is generally not limited by a drawing showing only a specific shape of a component. The Court does not find the fact that the claim is drafted in the so-called two-part form relevant. Apart from the fact that the Court does not rely on the grant procedure as interpretative aid because the procedure is not mentioned in Art. 69 EPC, the Defendant´s argument also fails on the merits. Whether or not the patentee chooses to claim the invention in a two-part form, this does not have any implication for the interpretation of the claim with respect to the scope of protection regarding infringement issues. As the claim must be interpreted as a whole, generally every feature – no matter where in the claim structure it appears – has to be taken into account. No additional room for a Gillette defence understood in the way the Defendant presented it. Prior art is not mentioned in Article 69(1) EPC. The limitation to the description and the drawings as interpretation material serves the purpose of legal certainty, since the scope of protection can be conclusively determined from the patent itself. If prior art is discussed in the description of the patent in suit, the relevant considerations must be taken into account. If the patent in suit distinguishes itself from the prior art in a particular way, an interpretation that negates that distinction must be avoided. In the case at hand, as it can be seen above, in interpreting the claim, the Court took into account the discussed distinction from the prior art in detail. No publication of decision (Article 80 UPCA). The Claimant´s interests are already satisfied by the effects of the other orders made by this decision on the merits. The right of publication includes a further element of punishment. Publication should therefore only be granted if the protection of the Claimant is not provided effectively and sufficiently ensured by the other measures ordered. This is not the case here.
IPPT20241031, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Valeo Electrification v Magna
Literal infringement (Article 69 EPC). It is more likely than not that the patent in suit is infringed by the offer and distribution of the challenged embodiments in the territory of the Contracting Member States Germany and France (R. 211.2 RoP). On summary examination, the challenged embodiments make direct and literal use of the technical teaching of claims 6 (challenged embodiments I and II) and 13 (challenged embodiment II).
IPPT20240913, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Philips IP v Belkin
Claim interpretation (article 69 EPC). The skilled person reads the claim in a way that makes technical sense and that takes into account the entire disclosure of the patent and with a mind willing to understand the claim in context. The same applies to the description and the drawings, although their purpose must be taken into account, namely to describe or illustrate the basic concept of a claimed invention by means of detailed examples. Protection sought pursuant to the description and the drawings can only be protected when expressed in the claim. If several embodiments are presented in the description as being in accordance with the invention, the terms used in the patent claim are to be understood, in case of doubt, in such a way that all embodiments can be used to fulfil them.
IPPT20240906, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Novartis v Celltrion
Claim interpretation is mandatory for the Court but also for the parties, who must submit their views on their proposed interpretation and were right to do so (Article 69 EPC). The skilled person will not stop its interpretation at the philological meaning but will always have in mind the technical function of the feature as such and the features in the context of each other. If a party necessarily considers that a technical argument must be substantiated by a party´s expert opinion, it is for the parties to present the technical argument to the Court in a concentrated and comprehensible form. This is not the case where mere reference is made to a party´s expert report, nor is it the case where a party´s expert report is copied verbatim into the brief. In particular, the technical arguments must be focused and precise for the Court in order to comply with the ambitious time limits set by the law. This applies to the main proceedings and, of course, even more so to PI proceedings..
IPPT20240830, UPC CFI, LD München, Avago v Tesla
Claim interpretation (Article 69 EPC). Interpretation of feature ‘in at least one of ...’. All of the elements listed in feature 1.1.2 in conjunction with the other features 1.2.2 and 1.3.2 are necessarily and therefore cumulatively claimed.
IPPT20240827, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Hand Held Products v Scandit
Claim interpretation (Article 69 EPC). The person skilled in the art is a team. The possible applications of claim 1 are many. Indirect infringement (article 26 UPCA): it must regularly be assumed that the supplied party will use the means in the manner suggested to it in the supplier's advertising messages, instructions for use and other documents. Direct infringement (article 25 UPCA) uncertain with constellation. In certain constellations a direct infringement is unproblematically the case, for example, if a kit for assembly into a complete device is supplied by the customer including assembly instructions and the complete device does not function if it is assembled in a different way. However, due to the large number of different programming options and possibilities for assembling the hardware components, it is not certain with the necessary concreteness that the customer produces a patent-compliant overall device.
IPPT20240826, UPC CFI, LD Hamburg, Avago v Tesla
Claim interpretation (article 69 EPC). The local division assumes a functional interpretation of the patent in suit. In view of the fact that claim 3 in particular is not limited to semiconductor chips, the person skilled in the art is to be defined as a graduate engineer specialising in electrical engineering with a university degree and several years of experience in the development of power control systems. In the case in dispute, it does not matter under what conditions and to what extent the grant history is relevant for the interpretation of the claim before the UPC. No divergent interpretation for infringement and validity.
IPPT20240731, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, Amycel
Claim construction (Article 69 EPC). Genetical identity can be assumed to exist also in case the sequencing results show a similarity of 99,88 % or above (with a standard deviation of +/- 0,0235). In fact, in view of the inevitable sequencing errors 100% identity will likely not be found even between identical samples (i.e. samples for the same strain) with the present techniques.
IPPT20240719, UPC CFI, CD Paris, Meril Italy v Edwards Lifesciences
Claim interpretation (Article 69 EPC). Person skilled in the art […] may be identified as a group consisting of a medical device engineer with an interest in prosthetic heart valves and an interventional cardiologist.
IPPT20240716, UPC CFI, CD Munich, Sanofi-Aventis v Amgen
Patent’s own lexicon. The description and the drawings may show that the patent specification defines terms independently and, in this respect, may represent a patent´s own lexicon. Claim interpretation of a medical use product claim (Article 69 EPC). The relevant point in time for interpreting a patent claim for the assessment of validity is the filing (or priority) date of the application that led to the patent in suit. Medical use format claims (Article 54(4)(5) EPC) are purpose-limited product claims. The product specified in a medical use claim must be objectively suitable for the claimed use; it must be able to be used for the treatment, prevention or reduction as specified in the claim. In this sense, it must be therapeutically effective. Skilled person is a team set out to solve a problem. The skilled person in this case is a team including someone having a university degree in biological sciences (or biochemistry) and several years of (post-doctorate) experience in the field of antibody technology and a researcher with a number of years post-doctorate research experience who is undertaking preclinical research into the treatment of cardiovascular diseases, and who has an interest in PCSK9 biology with respect to the role and function of PCSK9 in regulating LDL levels. The skilled person who, as rightly pointed out by the Defendant, is not an academic wishing to explore and understand the PCSK9 mechanism, but is a team that is set out to solve a problem, will consider a prior art document in its entirety in light of their common general knowledge and make realistic and practical deductions from a prior art teaching. The skilled person is aiming to solve a problem and in doing so is considering which next step(s), if any, are realistically to be taken. Absent any apparent errors or omissions in a prior art document, a skilled person will not be overly cautious (nor creative) and does not analyse every experiment in a prior art document in isolation with a view to the questions it does not answer but will rather be inclined to accept published (and peer reviewed) research results and reasonable conclusions drawn from those results at face value. Interpretation of the claims (Article 69 EPC). The meaning of the term “catalytic domain” is not explicitly defined in the Patent. The catalytic domain is understood by the skilled person as the region consisting of amino acid residues 123 to 419 of human PCSK9 (SEQ ID NO: 1). Based on wording of the claim and the description. It follows from the above that Figure 26 does not contain the “sole definition” of the catalytic domain. Feature F.3 should not be considered in isolation; its meaning must be determined in light of the claim as a whole and the underlying problem.
IPPT20240704, UPC CFI, LD Paris, DexCom v Abbott
Claim construction (article 69 EPC): “portion” cannot be construed as meaning “all” measurement data. This corresponds to the usual meaning of a “portion” and is in line with the description of the patent in suit, which distinguishes a portion from all data (Patent at issue, paragraph [0020]: “send a portion or all of the stored data”).
PPT20240626, UPC CFI, LD Hamburg, Alexion Pharmaceuticals v Amgen
Application for provisional measures dismissed (R. 211.2 RoP). The court is not at all convinced that the opposition division of the EPO will share the opinion of the court on the question of claim construction and may decide that the patent is invalid (Article 62(4) UPCA, R. 211.2 RoP, Article 69 EPC).
IPPT20240603, UPC CFI, LD Hamburg, Ballinno v UEFA
Local Division not convinced with sufficient certainty that the Defendants infringe the patent in suit (Article 62(4) UPCA, Rule 211(2) RoP; Article 69 EPC). The realization of several features of the patent claim is disputed between the parties (see below under IV. 2.). On summary examination, the Court finds that the attacked embodiment does not make direct or indirect literal use of claim 1 or 8 of the patent in suit (see below under IV. 3.). An infringement by equivalent means has also not been sufficiently demonstrated (see below under IV. 4.). […] it cannot be concluded that it is more likely than not that the attacked embodiment makes literal use of the teaching of patent claim 1 and/or 8, and their dependent claims 3, 7, 10 and 15. The facts of the case do not convince the Court that the attacked embodiment establishes an infringement by equivalent means. The technology used in the “Connected Ball Technology” does not make use of the same technical effect. Neither can a support vector machine nor the functioning of the “Connected Ball Technology” in particular be seen as equivalent to the patented com-parison of sound signals.
IPPT20240521, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Dyson v SharkNinja
Claim interpretation (article 69 EPC). The patent claim is not only the starting point, but the decisive basis for determining the scope of protection of a European patent under Art 69 EPC in conjunction with the Protocol on the Interpretation of Art 69 EPC. The interpretation of a patent claim does not depend solely on its exact wording in the linguistic sense. Rather, the description and the drawings must always be consulted as explanatory aids for the interpretation of the patent claim and not only for the elimination of any ambiguities in the patent claim. However, this does not mean that the patent claim merely serves as a guideline and that its subject matter also extends to that which, after examination of the description and the drawings, appears to be the patent proprietor's request for protection. The patent claim must be interpreted from the perspective of a person skilled in the art. When applying these principles, fair protection for the patent proprietor should be combined with sufficient legal certainty for third parties. These principles for the interpretation of a patent claim apply equally to the assessment of infringement and the legal validity of a European patent (UPC_CoA_335/2023 and CoA 8/2024).
IPPT20240430, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, 10x Genomics v Curio Bioscience
Claim interpretation and prosecution history (article 69 EPC). Statements made by the applicant in the granting procedure are not admissible material for interpretation. They are therefore generally not to be taken into account in the context of patent interpretation.
IPPT20240409, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Ortovox Sportartikel v Mammut Sports
Claim interpretation and prosecution history. Prosecution history is in principle not admissible for claim interpretation. At most it may have indicative significance for how the skilled person understands a feature, if the applicant has commented on the meaning of a feature or term in the curse of the examination procedure (Article 69 EPC).
IPPT20231220, UPC CFI, LD Munich, SES-Imagotag v Hanshow
Claim interpretation - prosecution history (article 69 EPC).The original version of the claims and amendments thereof during the application procedure can be used for claim interpretation. It follows from the spatial delimitation [...] that a component to be assigned to the side of the front surface of the electronic label cannot at the same time be assigned to the side of the rear surface of the housing - and vice versa.
IPPT20231211, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Ortovox Sportartikel v Mammut Sports
The prosecution history is in principle not to be taken into account when interpreting the patent. Article 24 (1) (c) UPCA in conjunction with Article 69 EPC conclusively determine which documents are to be used in the interpretation of the patent claims determining the scope of protection, namely the patent description and the patent drawings. Mere statements made during the grant procedure do not initially have any significance in limiting the scope of protection. At most, they can have an indicative meaning as to how the person skilled in the art can understand the feature in question (cf. on German law similarly BGH, NJW 1997, 3377, 3380 - Weichvorrichtung II). However, there is no mention of the fact that the simultaneous output of sound signals and voice messages is absolutely necessary for the realisation of the technical teaching of the patent in suit, based on its overall content, in the statement referred to by the defendants before the court in the grant proceedings.
IPPT20230913, UPC CFI, LD Vienna, CUP&CINO v Alpina Coffee
The scope of protection of a European patent is to be interpreted on the basis of Article 69 (1) EPC including its interpretative protocol in conjunction with Article 24(1)(c) UPCA. Accordingly, the scope of protection of the patent is determined by the content of the patent claims, for the interpretation of which the description and the drawings must also be taken into account. In this respect, the interpretation of the patent claims serves not only to eliminate any ambiguities, but also to explain the technical terms used therein and to clarify the meaning and scope of the invention described therein. The patent description is the source material for determining the technical teaching that is protected by the patent claim. This form of interpretation combines adequate protection for the patent proprietor with sufficient legal certainty for third parties. The aspect of legal certainty requires that interested third parties are able to recognise whether a contemplated, planned or already realised specific embodiment falls within the scope of protection of the patent claim.
