UPClytics
DEEN
AnmeldenTesten
Alle Fälle anzeigen

UPC CFI 187/2024

22. Apr. 2024·EP1910572 +1 more · METHODS OF DETECTING NUCLEIC ACIDS IN INDIVIDUAL CELLS AND OF IDENTIFYING RARE CELLS FROM LARGE HETEROGENEOUS CELL POPULATIONS

Folgen
Verfahrensdetails
Status
Case Closed (Keine Verletzung)
Verfahrensart
Verletzung
Kategorie
Hauptverletzungsklage
Parteien
Kläger
Vertreter
  • Judith Krens-Pinsent Masons
  • Christopher Sharp
  • Kristina Cornish
  • Nicolas Bitsch
Beklagte
Vertreter
  • Marianne Schaffner-Gowling WLG
  • Matthew Spencer
  • James Legg
  • Anne Marie Verschuur
  • Celine Bey
Patente
Division
The Hague LD
Richter
Technologie
  • Chemistry
    Organic fine chemistry · Biotechnology · Chemical engineering
Sprache
English
Erste Entscheidung
18. Nov. 2025
EPA-Einspruch
  • Affymetrix, Inc.Zulässig2015-04-27
Im Vergleich
Die Bilanz des Gerichts für diese Art von Verfahren, gezählt in erstinstanzlichen Entscheidungen. Eine Zahl in Klammern gibt an, auf wie vielen Entscheidungen eine Quote beruht.
Verletzung festgestelltMedian Tage bis zur ersten Entscheidung
Gesamt-UPC53% (62/117)124
The Hague LDGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Edger BrinkmanGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Margot KokkeGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Alima ZanaGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Michael AltGesperrtGesperrt

Vor dem UPC: Advanced Cell Diagnostics, Inc. (2 Verfahren)·Molecular Instruments, Inc. (2 Verfahren)

14 Tage kostenlos testenBereits Nutzer? Anmelden
Verwandte Verfahren

Dieser Streit umfasst 1 weitere Verfahren

UPC CFI 507/2024

Starten Sie die kostenlose Testphase, um die Ausgänge zu sehen.

Weitere Verfahren: The Hague LD·2024

Entscheidungen
  • 2025-11-18
    Infringement ActionÖffentlich

    Zusammenfassung: The Hague Local Division decided in proceedings on infringement and counterclaim for revocation concerning Advanced Cell Diagnostics' RNAscope technology patents (EP 1 910 572 and EP 2 500 439) against Molecular Instruments; the decision addressed novelty, inventive step, and infringement of in situ hybridisation method claims.

    Rechtsfragen anzeigen (4)
    • In situ hybridisation RNA detection method patents
    • Novelty
    • Inventive step
    • Infringement
Dokumente
Alle 400 Dokumente anzeigen
DokumenttitelDatumÖffentlich
Verfahren abgeschlossen2025-11-25Nicht öffentlich
Mündliches Verfahren abgeschlossen2025-11-18Nicht öffentlich
Entscheidung2025-11-18Nicht öffentlich
Decision2025-11-18Öffentlich
Mitteilung2025-11-13Nicht öffentlich
Other Documents2025-10-29Nicht öffentlich
Cover sheet2025-10-03Nicht öffentlich
Other document2025-10-03Nicht öffentlich
Other document2025-10-03Nicht öffentlich
Receipt2025-10-03Nicht öffentlich
Zusammenfassung in einfacher Sprache

Advanced Cell Diagnostics (ACD) sued Molecular Instruments for infringement of its RNAscope in situ hybridisation patents EP 1 910 572 and EP 2 500 439 at The Hague Local Division. The court upheld both patents as valid (dismissing Molecular Instruments' revocation counterclaim) but found no infringement, either literal or by equivalence, because Molecular Instruments' HCR products use probes with a 1-4 nucleotide overlap rather than the strictly non-overlapping arrangement claimed, and that overlap serves an independent technical function that distinguishes the HCR approach from the patented invention.

Angenommene Argumente
Was das Gericht akzeptiert hat — nach Partei.

  • Both EP 1 910 572 and EP 2 500 439 are valid (novelty and inventive step upheld); counterclaim for revocation dismissed

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 54 EPC; Art. 56 EPC

    Hinweis: The court dismissed Molecular Instruments' counterclaim for revocation in its entirety, confirming both RNAscope patents are valid.

  • Equivalence arguments introduced in the reply to the statement of defence are admissible

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: R. 7 RoP

    Hinweis: Court held the equivalence arguments were a legitimate response to the defence, directed to the same patent and same accused products, and the defendant had full opportunity to respond.

Zurückgewiesene Argumente
Was das Gericht nicht akzeptiert hat — und warum.

  • Literal infringement of claim features 1(d)(iii), 1(h), 1(j) and 1(k)(iii) of EP 1 910 572 by HCR Products

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 25 UPCA

    Begründung: Defendant's HCR products use probes that hybridise to partly overlapping regions of the hairpin initiator rather than to non-overlapping regions as claimed in feature 1(h); the product does not literally implement the 'non-overlapping' feature.

  • Infringement by equivalence for the missing 'non-overlapping' feature 1(h)

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Doctrine of equivalents

    Begründung: The court rejected equivalence on three grounds: (1) legal certainty for third parties makes it impossible to define how much overlap is still equivalent; (2) the patents are not a major inventive step so fair protection does not require equivalence; (3) the 1-4 nucleotide overlap in HCR has an independent technical function (kinetic barrier reduction) serving a different way of achieving the result, making it more than a mere work-around.

Zentrale Rechtsgrundsätze
In der Begründung herangezogene Doktrinen und Regeln.
Doctrine of equivalents: fair protection balanced against legal certainty for third partiesEquivalence rejected where alternative design has an independent technical function of its own, not merely a work-aroundPatents representing modest inventive contribution do not demand broad equivalence scopeEquivalence arguments first raised in reply are admissible where they respond to defence arguments and relate to the same featuresCounterclaim for revocation dismissed where both patents found valid

Weitere Fälle zu diesem Grundsatz ansehen.

Herangezogener Stand der Technik
Zitierte Schriften und die Rolle, die sie gespielt haben.
  • WO 2007/001986 A2 (WO986) — EP572 priority documentHintergrund
Hinweise zur Anspruchsauslegung

The disputed claim feature was 'non-overlapping' regions in the probe/hairpin hybridisation scheme of EP 1 910 572 claim 1 (feature 1(h)). The court found that HCR products use probes hybridising to partly overlapping regions (1-4 nucleotide overlap), which does not literally meet the 'non-overlapping' requirement. On equivalence, the court held that the 1-4 nucleotide overlap is technically functional and not a mere cosmetic variant, relying heavily on the specific energy-relaxation mechanism that the overlap enables.