ARTICLE
14 May 2025

UPC Court Of Appeal, Order Of April 30, 2025, UPC_CoA_768/2024

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.
The interpretation of a patent claim is a matter of law. Therefore, the Court cannot leave the judicial task of interpreting the patent claim to an expert but has to construe the claim independently.
Luxembourg Intellectual Property

1. Key takeaways

Claim construction principles

The interpretation of a patent claim is a matter of law. Therefore, 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.

Principle considerations on the risk of recurring infringement actions

In general, the risk of the continuation of the infringement arises from a prior infringement, if the infringer does not issue a cease-and-desist declaration with a sufficient penalty clause.

Partial success must not necessarily result in a split cost decision

If one party is partially unsuccessful, the costs do not always have to be apportioned proportionately. In particular where a party's unsuccessful claim was relatively minor and did not cause further costs, its entire costs may be awarded against the other party.

2. Division

CoA Luxembourg

3. UPC number

UPC_CoA_768/2024

4. Type of proceedings

Request for provisional measures

5. Parties

Applicant: Insulet Corporation
Respondent: EOFlow Co., Ltd.

6. Patent(s)

EP4201327

7. Body of legislation / Rules

Art. 62 (1) UPCA, Art. 69 (2) UPCA

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