UPC CFI 106/2025

An infringing act established in one Contracting Member State (Germany, even under a procedural 'carve out') is sufficient to issue an injunction covering all Contracting Member States where the patent is in force under Art. 34 UPCA

The dual optics feature of claim 1 does not require two separate optical systems without moving parts; the patent's teaching exploits depth of field and claim 1 does not exclude moving parts

Convergence of light beams at the target distance constitutes the required 'signalling' under claim 1 without a temporally separate second step

Infringement of claims 1 and 14 by Canfield Vectra H2, including use of the method in clinical study support and training

No prescription under Art. 72 UPCA because claimant only acquired knowledge of infringing acts in July/August 2020 (when infringement analysis and warning letter were issued)

Provisional damages of EUR 20,000 are warranted under R. 119 RoP to cover anticipated costs of the quantum proceedings

Provisional cost reimbursement of EUR 90,000 for the counterclaim for revocation is justified at 50% of the reimbursement ceiling

Lack of inventive step of EP 3 156 843 based on multiple prior art combinations including Wolf 'Elements of Photogrammetry', VECTRA H1 User Guide, WO 2010/012722, WO 2010/097572, and related art

Claim 1 requires dual optics without moving parts and with two fully separate optical systems

Signalling must be a distinct temporally separate step following establishment of target distance

Claimant lacked passive standing against Defendant 1 for acts in non-German contracting member states because only German infringement was alleged and Germany was carved out

Injunction should be territorially limited per defendant to countries where that defendant's infringing acts were individually proven

Claims for damages and ancillary relief accruing before 26 September 2019 are time-barred under Art. 72 UPCA

Enforcement should be stayed pending provision of a bank guarantee of EUR 1,800,000 due to catastrophic potential harm to respondents

Disclosure obligation should be subject to a confidentiality order restricting access to claimant's legal representatives and one non-sales employee

Three US family patents were held invalid by the PTAB in IPR proceedings on substantially the same prior art, indicating the patent lacks inventive step