Executive Summary
This Lokalkammer decision addressed a patent infringement suit concerning a roof hatch/staircase (Dachbodentreppe). While the claim for infringement was ultimately dismissed, the court delivered crucial legal guidance. The ruling reinforced the strict 'direct and unambiguous derivation' standard for determining if an invention is the same as one in an earlier application under Article 87 EPC. It also set a clear procedural boundary, prohibiting parties from introducing validity arguments (like lack of inventive step) during oral hearings.
What the Court Held — Ratio Decidendi
The court clarified that 'the same invention' under Article 87 EPC requires a skilled person to derive the claimed subject matter directly and unambiguously from an earlier application as a whole. Furthermore, it strictly mandated that all validity attacks must be introduced alongside the counterclaim for revocation, not during oral hearings.
Practitioner Note
This decision partially_granted relief to the petitioner. If you are facing a similar patent dispute before Hamburg (DE) Local Division, this precedent supports interim or final relief where the facts are comparable. The ratio regarding the applied tests is particularly relevant for strategy.
Related Cases
M-A-S Maschinen- und Anlagenbau Schulz GmbHvsAltech Makina Sanayi ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi
In this procedural ruling, the Düsseldorf Local Court addressed the validity of serving a statement of claim at an international trade fair. The court affirmed that a temporary business presence, such as a booth at a major exhibition, qualifies as a valid place for service of process under UPC rules. This decision is significant for patent practitioners involved in cross-border litigation, confirming practical methods for initiating proceedings against foreign entities.
Huawei Technologies Co. LtdvsMediaTek Germany GmbH
In this UPC decision concerning a patent infringement case, the court addressed a motion by MediaTek Germany GmbH to require cost security from Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. The court ultimately ruled in favor of the respondent, ordering Huawei to deposit €150,000 as security for legal costs. This ruling highlights the UPC's approach to balancing procedural fairness and financial risk when dealing with international parties, particularly those based outside the EU/EEA.
FUJIFILM CorporationvsKodak GmbH
This UPC decision addresses a second application for penalties during ongoing enforcement proceedings concerning EP 3 511 174. The Claimant, Fujifilm, successfully argued that Kodak and its subsidiaries had failed to fully comply with previous court orders regarding destruction and recall of infringing products. The Court found the defendants' disclosures were incomplete and lacked necessary detail, justifying the continuation of penalty measures. While the request for penalty reduction was rejected, leave to appeal was granted, highlighting the evolving nature of enforcement jurisprudence under the UPC.
Labrador Diagnostics LLCvsbioMérieux SA
Labrador Diagnostics LLC brought an infringement action against bioMérieux SA concerning the diagnostic instrument and method covered by EP 3 756 767 B1. The Düsseldorf Local Division ultimately dismissed the infringement claim. This decision highlights the procedural implications of bifurcated UPC cases, confirming that a finding of non-infringement renders the validity question moot for the immediate action. It also sets clear parameters regarding cost allocation in unsuccessful litigation.
Visibly Inc.vsEasee Holding B.V., Easee B.V.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses an application for suspensive effect in a complex infringement and revocation case. The core issue was the appeal against a CFI order requiring Easee to provide security for legal costs. Given that the main proceedings had been stayed due to the insolvency of the Easee companies, the Court found that continuing the appeals served no purpose. This ruling emphasizes the practical application of procedural rules when external events, such as corporate insolvency, impact ongoing litigation in the UPC.
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.