ARTICLE
2 December 2024

LD The Hague, November 22, 2024, Decision On The Merits, UPC_CFI_239/2023

BP
Bardehle Pagenberg

Contributor

BARDEHLE PAGENBERG combines the expertise of attorneys-at-law and patent attorneys. As one of the largest IP firms in Europe, BARDEHLE PAGENBERG advises in all fields of Intellectual Property, including all procedures before the patent and trademark offices as well as litigation before the courts through all instances.
Assessment of the scope of protection in infringement cases in two steps: (i) literal infringement; (ii) infringement by equivalence
Germany Intellectual Property
  1. Key takeaways

Assessment of the scope of protection in infringement cases in two steps: (i) literal infringement; (ii) infringement by equivalence

The UPCA contains no provision on the infringement by equivalence, however, Art. 2 of the Protocol to Art. 69 EPC makes clear that equivalence must be considered: "For the purpose of determining the extent of protection conferred by a European patent, due account shall be taken of any element which is equivalent to an element specified in the claims."

Infringement by equivalence

4-step test based on the practice of various national jurisdictions applies:

  1. Technical equivalence

Does the variation solve (essentially) the same problem that the patented invention solves and performs (essentially) the same function in this context?

  1. Fair protection for the patentee

Is extending the protection of the claim to the equivalent proportionate to a fair protection for the patentee: in view of his contribution to the art and is it obvious to the skilled person from the patent publication how to apply the equivalent element (at the time of infringement)?

  1. Reasonable legal certainty for third parties

Does the skilled person understand from the patent that the scope of the invention is broader than what is claimed literally? Is there, in the eyes of the skilled person, a good reason to limit the scope of protection of the claim to a device/method as claimed literally?

  1. Is the allegedly infringing product novel and inventive over the prior art? (i.e. no successful Gillette/Formstein defence)

Priority right, Art. 87 EPC

The requirement of "the same invention" in Article 87 EPC is met if the skilled person can derive the subject-matter of the claim of an invention directly and unambiguously, using common general knowledge, from the previous application as a whole ("gold standard"), in line with EPO case law and the standard used in several UPCA Contracting Member States.

Added matter

"Gold standard" disclosure applies: Any amendment can 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.

Assessment of novelty

An invention lacks novelty if all claims of an invention are disclosed integrally, directly and unambiguously in one single piece of the prior art. "Gold standard" applies.

Inventive step

The Court follows the problem and solution approach as used by the EPO, however, using a realistic starting point in the state of the art. In selecting the starting point, the first consideration is that it must be directed to a similar purpose or similar effect as the invention or at least belong to the same or a closely related technical field as the claimed invention.

Text for recall letters

The Court can impose a text for the recall letters and/or publication on a website to ensure that the measure is effective and to avoid situation in which unclear or confusing messages are spread, Art. 64 UPCA, Art. 10 Enforcement Directive (2004/48/EG).

  1. Division

Local Division The Hague

  1. UPC number

UPC_CFI_239/2023

  1. Type of proceedings

Infringement action, counterclaim for revocation

  1. Parties

Claimants in the infringement proceedings and Defendants in the counterclaim proceedings: Plant-e Knowledge B.V., Plant-e B.V.

Defendant in the infringement proceedings and Claimant in the counterclaim proceedings: Arkyne Technologies S.L.

  1. Patent(s)

EP 2 137 782

  1. Body of legislation / Rules

Art. 69 EPC, Art. 2 of the Protocol to Art. 69 EPC, Art. 87 EPC, Art. 123 (2) EPC, Art. 54 EPC, Art. 56 EPC, Art. 83 EPC, Art. 25 UPCA, Art. 26 UPCA, Art. 63 UPCA, Art. 64 UPCA, Art. 67 UPCA, Art. 68 UPCA, Art. 80 UPCA, R. 354 RoP

To view the full article please click here.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More