UPC_CFI_315/2024

MODULAR POINT-OF-CARE DEVICES AND USES THEREOF

VerletzungHauptverletzungsklageDusseldorf LDInfringementCase Closed

Übersicht Entscheidungen Begründung Zitate Dokumente Zeitverlauf

Abdeckung: Teilweise.Begründung teilweise extrahiert — einige Abschnitte können unvollständig sein.

Zusammenfassung in einfacher Sprache

Labrador Diagnostics LLC (US) sued bioMérieux SA and related entities for infringement of EP 3 756 767 B1, a patent for a modular point-of-care diagnostic testing device. After the Central Division amended the patent in parallel validity proceedings, the Düsseldorf Local Division dismissed Labrador's infringement action, holding it was bound by the amended claim wording under which the bioMérieux products did not infringe; the question of validity was no longer decisive once non-infringement was established.

Angenommene Argumente

Was das Gericht akzeptiert hat — nach Partei.

Local Division is bound by the Central Division's amended claim wording in a bifurcated case
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 33 UPCA; bifurcation provisions
Hinweis: Court held that once the Central Division amends the patent in the validity track, the Local Division in the infringement track must apply the new amended claims and cannot look behind them.
No infringement of amended claim 1: challenged products do not meet the amended claim features
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 25 UPCA
Hinweis: Court dismissed the infringement action after construing the amended claims; the challenged bioMérieux products did not infringe.

Zurückgewiesene Argumente

Was das Gericht nicht akzeptiert hat — und warum.

Infringement by equivalence of product claim 1 (challenged embodiment I)
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 25(1) UPCA
Begründung: Court left the admissibility of the doctrine of equivalents claim open as it was not decisive; non-infringement under the literal amended claim was sufficient to dismiss, and equivalence was not found.
Patent validity remains decisive for the infringement action even in a bifurcated case
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 33 UPCA
Begründung: In a bifurcated case where no infringement is found, validity is no longer decisive for the outcome of the infringement action.

Zentrale Rechtsgrundsätze

In der Begründung herangezogene Doktrinen und Regeln.

In a bifurcated UPC case, the Local Division is bound by the Central Division's amendment of the patent claims Where infringement is not found under amended claims, validity becomes irrelevant to the infringement action Doctrine of equivalents admissibility question may be left open if non-infringement is found without it Bifurcation: Local Division must apply amended claim wording from Central Division validity proceedings

Weitere Fälle zu diesem Grundsatz ansehen.

Hinweise zur Anspruchsauslegung

The infringement action concerned EP 3 756 767 B1 (modular point-of-care diagnostic device). Following the Central Division's amendment of the patent in bifurcated proceedings, the Local Division applied the new amended claim wording and found that bioMérieux's challenged diagnostic systems did not meet the amended claim features. The precise scope of the amended claims is not detailed in the excerpt.