1. Key takeaways
Digital simulations cannot replace direct examination of the attacked products to prove non-infringement.
The defendant relied on simulations rather than examining the real attacked optics, despite having had ample opportunity to do so since service of the statement of claim. The Court held this choice does not justify a further briefing right or additional evidence-taking at the oral hearing.
Claim amendments following an EPO limitation decision are admissible as editorial corrections under R. 30.2 and R. 263.3 RoP.
Following the claimant’s successful limitation proceedings before the EPO, claimant’s amended requests were considered to be mere revisions, which are admissible under R. 30.2, 263.3 RoP. The defendant was given the opportunity to comment on this matter.
2. Division
Local Division Munich
3. UPC number
UPC_CFI_245/2025; UPC_CFI_618/2025
4. Type of proceedings
Procedural order following second interim conference (R. 105.5 RoP) in main infringement action and revocation counterclaim
5. Parties
Claimant: SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme Ges.m.b.H.
Defendant: Yunex GmbH
Intervener: Shenzhen Dianming Technology Co., Ltd (supporting Defendant)
6. Patent(s)
EP 2 643 717
7. Jurisdictions
UPC
8. Body of legislation / Rules
R. 30.2, 263.3 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.
[View Source]
