UPC CFI 26/2025

No technical-functional equivalence of substitute means in accused 'Tray2Go' product

Hinweis: Defendant succeeded in defeating equivalence by showing the substituted sidewall element did not fulfil essentially the same function to achieve essentially the same effect as required by the patent's teaching.

Late-filed evidence of prior art (commercial brochure backed by physical product) should be excluded for lack of timely justification

Hinweis: Court upheld exclusion of untimely prior-art evidence, reinforcing the front-loaded UPC procedural model requiring full cases to be submitted as early as possible.

Accused 'Tray2Go' product infringes the patent under the doctrine of equivalents via Variant A (gradual transgression of second stiffening portion)

Begründung: Claimant failed to demonstrate what technical effect the substitute means achieved or that it fulfilled essentially the same function to produce essentially the same effect; argument also raised for the first time in Reply and lacked supporting analysis.

Physical product obtained from a commercial brochure can establish the brochure's prior-art disclosure

Begründung: A commercial brochure is evaluated as a stand-alone publication; obtaining the advertised physical product is not a valid approach to establishing the brochure's disclosure as a piece of prior art.

Claims should be construed based on English translation rather than the German-language authentic text

Begründung: Under Art. 70(1) EPC the language of the patent (German for EP415) is the authentic text; the court construed claims in German even though proceedings were in English.