Jun 4, 2026
An "infringer" within the meaning of Art. 63 UPCA in conjunction with Art. 25 UPCA is also a person who does not personally carry out the acts referred to in Art. 25 UPCA but to whom the acts of a third party are…
Read more →This decision specifies the permissible scope of the clarity examination in opposition proceedings following structural amendments to the claims. If a granted dependent claim is completely transferred into an…
Read more →In separate proceedings in which the counterclaim for a declaration of invalidity was referred by the Local Division to the Central Division (bifurcation), the Local Division is bound by the new wording of the claims…
Read more →Jun 1, 2026
In this decision, the Board of Appeal addresses the interpretation of patent claims, applying and interpreting the fundamental principles established by the Enlarged Board of Appeal in its decision G 1/24. Claim…
Read more →The right to be heard is a fundamental principle of patent proceedings, the boundaries of which are clarified in this decision. If the Board of Appeal discusses for the first time during oral proceedings the novelty or…
Read more →Jun 1, 2026
When drafting patent claims in two-part form, the question of correct delimitation regularly arises. According to Rule 43(1) EPC, the delimitation must be made against the state of the art. However, this does not mean…
Read more →Jun 1, 2026
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…
Read more →Jun 1, 2026
In this decision, the Board of Appeal addresses the implications of the landmark decision G 1/23 of the Enlarged Board of Appeal. The Enlarged Board's decision does not exclude the selection of a product that is…
Read more →Jun 1, 2026
A single technical feature not disclosed in the state of the art is sufficient to confer novelty on a claim, regardless of its technical effect. In this assessment, the concept of 'photographic' novelty applies, so to…
Read more →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…
Read more →The Mannheim Local Division dismissed the infringement action regarding the patent in suit because the plaintiff could not sufficiently demonstrate that the attacked embodiments implement the features of the patent. The…
Read more →May 28, 2026
The approach taken by the Unified Patent Court when establishing inventive step under Art 56 EPC is as follows:
Read more →May 27, 2026
If a product consists of different components, the allegedly infringing product must comprise each claimed component. Cases in which only certain features of a product are realised may be examples of indirect…
Read more →May 25, 2026
R 370.9 lit b RoP was amended with effect from 1 January 2026 and now provides for a refund of court fees of 50% if an action is withdrawn before the conclusion of the written procedure, instead of the previous 60%. The…
Read more →The fact that (most) parties are not resident in countries where the language of proceedings chosen by the plaintiff is an official language is an important factor when deciding on a request to change the language of…
Read more →May 21, 2026
Sufficiency of Disclosure under Art 138 Abs 1 lit i.c.w. Art 83 EPC has to be examined on the basis of the patent as a whole, thus on the basis of the claims, description and drawings, from the perspective of the…
Read more →May 20, 2026
The defendant and its intervener had lodged an appeal. The plaintiff declared the withdrawal of the appeal due to an out-of-court settlement in which the intervener was not involved. The intervener agreed to the…
Read more →The question of whether conclusions can be drawn from the subject matter of a dependent claim and its features when interpreting the main claim depends on the circumstances of the individual case. If the dependent claim…
Read more →The applicant requested access to pleadings and evidence from a concluded case in order to publish these documents on a subscription-based platform and thus promote the transparency of patent proceedings. The request is…
Read more →If an application to amend the patent is filed, the plaintiff must file a reply to the application to amend (R 43.3 RoP). Where appropriate in view of the proposed amendments, the reply may contain alternative arguments…
Read more →
We keep a close eye on recent legal developments, provide up-to-date advice, and develop strategies that turn new decisions to your advantage.
Contact us →