SONN Patentanwälte – IP Attorneys

  1. UPC Local Division: Substantive Decision: Interpretation, Infringement

    A patent infringement is not excluded by the fact that a device is normally operated in a non-infringing manner and that customers therefore regularly do not make use of the patented teaching, as long as the use of the patented teaching remains possible when using the device. In the case of a medical...

  2. Claim construction, Interpretation, Clarity, Amendments, Scope of protection, EPC, Opposition

    Proper claim construction is essential for a correct assessment of patent claims. A claim construction that disregards a technically meaningful claim feature is not a good-faith interpretation. Rather, the skilled person, approaching the claim with a mind willing to understand, gives each claim feature...

  3. UPC Local Division: Substantive Decision: Interpretation, Acts of Use, Injunction Order

    A process claim drafted as a further independent claim and the corresponding description can only be relevant for determining the scope of protection of an independent product claim to the extent that there are indications in the patent specification that this also describes properties of the claimed...

  4. UPC Court of Appeal: Interpretation of the term „offering“

    The term “offering” within the meaning of Art. 25(a) UPCA is to be interpreted autonomously. Offering is to be understood in an economic sense, not based on legal understanding of a binding contractual offer. Therefore, the offer does not need to contain all the details that would be necessary for...

  5. EPO Board of Appeal: No interpretative somersaults in case of contradiction with the description

    Even when applying the recent EBA decision G 1/24, a patent claim should not be interpreted more narrowly on the basis of features from embodiments than the person skilled in the art would understand it in view of its pure wording. In the event of a contradiction between the claim wording and the...

  6. UPC Local Division: Claim Interpretation

    The patent in suit relates to arrangements in wireless networks. In particular, it relates to a method and a device for high-speed processing of protocol headers in an intermediate and/or destination node of a packet-based communication network. When interpreting the patent claim, in addition to...

  7. UPC Local Division: Product-by-Process Claims

    Product-by-process claims are characterized by the fact that the technical content of the invention does not regularly consist in the process as such, but in the technical properties that are conferred on the product by the process. What is decisive is how the person skilled in the art understands...

  8. UPC Court of Appeal: Original Disclosure

    An impermissible extension ("added matter") exists if the granted claim comprises subject matter that goes beyond the content of the original application. In order to determine whether an impermissible extension exists, the court must therefore first determine what the skilled person, with the aid...

  9. UPC Court of Appeal: Claim Interpretation

    As a general principle for the interpretation of patent claims, so-called "means-plus-function" features are to be understood as any embodiment capable of performing the function in question (UPC 14. 2. 2025, CoA 382/2024).

  10. UPC Court of Appeal: Claim Interpretation

    The interpretation of a patent claim is a legal question. Therefore, the court cannot delegate the judicial task of claim interpretation to an expert, but must interpret the claim independently. The skilled person is a fictional person who cannot be equated with a real person in the technical field...

Next page
Top