Short Summary
This is a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued on 25 November 2025 concerning appeals in a revocation action and a counterclaim for revocation. The judgment sets out headnotes addressing four key areas of patent law: claim interpretation, added matter, sufficiency, and inventive step. The decision establishes legal principles regarding the interpretation of dependent claims, the inherent therapeutic effectiveness requirement in medical use-format claims, the assessment of added matter as a question of law, the sufficiency test for functionally defined claims, and the framework for assessing inventive step.
Detailed Summary
The judgment is issued by the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court on 25 November 2025, concerning appeals in a revocation action and a counterclaim for revocation. The case references are UPC_CoA_528/2024 and UPC_CoA_529/2024. The specific parties and patent at issue are not identified in the provided text excerpt.
The judgment addresses four principal areas of patent law through its headnotes. First, regarding claim interpretation, the Court addresses whether conclusions can be drawn from dependent claims when interpreting the main claim, holding that this depends on the circumstances of the individual case. If a dependent claim merely adds an additional feature without providing a more specific description of the main claim features, this generally argues against drawing interpretive conclusions. Second, the Court addresses medical use-format claims, holding that it is an inherent claim feature that the claimed product must be objectively suitable for the claimed use and be therapeutically effective, requiring that the treatment causes a noticeable improvement of the patient's medical condition. Third, regarding added matter, the Court establishes that this assessment is a question of law to be decided on the basis of facts brought forward by the parties, with the relevant facts being the claims and the application as filed. Fourth, regarding sufficiency, the Court sets out the test for whether the skilled person can reproduce the claimed subject matter without inventive effort or undue burden.
& Analysis: On claim interpretation, the Court reasoned that the skilled person does not derive any minimum required effect from the claim or description, but the feature of therapeutic effect follows from the use of the medical use claim format itself. On added matter, the Court held that 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. On sufficiency, the Court established that sufficiency must be examined on the basis of the patent as a whole (claims, description, and drawings) from the perspective of the skilled person with common general knowledge at the filing or priority date. The Court further reasoned that where a claim contains functional features, specific instructions for every conceivable embodiment are not required, and that a fair protection requires that variants of specifically disclosed embodiments equally suitable to achieve the same effect should also be protected. The Court also held that a reasonable amount of trial and error does not prevent enablement, and that the burden of presentation and proof lies with the party invoking invalidity. On inventive step, the Court began to outline the approach, establishing that the object of the invention (objective problem) must be assessed from the perspective of the skilled person with common general knowledge at the application or priority date, by establishing what the invention adds to the state of the art.
Final Order & Ruling: The provided text excerpt contains only the headnotes of the decision and is truncated mid-sentence in the inventive step section. The specific final order, ruling, and outcome of the appeals are not contained in the provided text.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Munich (DE) Local Division. Understanding the court's reasoning in Amgen Inc. vs Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Rematec GmbH & Co KGvsEurope Forestry B.V.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court refused leave to appeal against an order of the Local Division Mannheim that had rejected Rematec's two cost determination applications as time-barred and dismissed its applications for reinstatement. The Court held that an application for leave to appeal under Rule 157 in conjunction with Rule 221 of the Rules of Procedure is inadmissible insofar as it is directed against the rejection of a reinstatement application, since Rule 320.7 expressly precludes appeals against orders on reinstatement. The Court also rejected Europe Forestry's request to impose costs on Rematec, noting that cost reimbursement is generally not available in cost determination proceedings.
Rematec GmbH & Co KGvsEurope Forestry B.V.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court refused leave to appeal against an order of the Local Division Mannheim that had rejected Rematec's two cost determination applications as time-barred and denied reinstatement into the missed deadlines. The Court of Appeal held that an application for leave to appeal under R. 157 and R. 221 RoP is inadmissible insofar as it challenges the rejection of a reinstatement application, because R. 320.7 RoP expressly excludes appeals against orders on reinstatement. No arguable grounds for leave to appeal were identified regarding the rejection of retroactive deadline extension requests.
Promosome LLC and The Scripps Research InstitutevsBioNTech SE, BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH, BioNTech Manufacturing Marburg GmbH, BioNTech Innovative Manufacturing Services GmbH, BioNTech Europe GmbH, Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium NV, Pfizer SAS, Pfizer AB, and Pfizer, Inc.
This order of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerns three appeals (UPC-CoA-146/2026, UPC-CoA-147/2026, and UPC-CoA-148/2026) relating to EP 2 401 365. The appellants, Promosome LLC and The Scripps Research Institute, sought a one-month extension of the deadline for lodging their Statements of grounds of appeal, citing heavy professional workload and school holiday periods. Both groups of respondents (BioNTech and Pfizer entities) opposed the extension. The Court of Appeal rejected the applications, holding that the circumstances relied upon were foreseeable and did not justify an extension of the procedural time period.
Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbHvsFujifilm Corporation
This is a procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3 511 174. The Respondents (Kodak entities) requested a one-week extension of the deadline to file written comments on the Applicant's (Fujifilm's) request for rehearing. The Court granted the extension until 23 October 2026, finding the request admissible and well-founded because the Applicant had consented, the extension was brief, and the Respondents' representatives had been occupied preparing for a related oral hearing before the Düsseldorf Regional Court that was postponed shortly before the application was filed.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.vsSercomm Italia SRL
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning alternative service of process on Sercomm Italia SRL in a patent infringement action involving European Patent EP 3 611 989 B1. After multiple failed attempts to serve the Italian defendant at its registered business address, the rapporteur had previously ordered under Rule 275.2 RoP that the prior service measures constituted valid service. The present order addresses the fact that notification of that earlier order was unsuccessful and directs additional means of notification to ensure the defendant is informed.
Network System Technologies LLCvsQualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., Qualcomm Germany GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Network System Technologies LLC's (NST) applications for re-establishment of rights under R. 320 RoP. NST had sought to revive its late-filed appeals against the rejection of its R. 190 Applications (production of evidence) in three infringement proceedings against Qualcomm before the Munich Local Division. The Court held that NST failed to demonstrate that all due care had been taken, as the circumstances cited did not constitute exceptional circumstances or excusable error under the precedent set in AIM v Supponor.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.