UPC CFI 334/2025

The 'stem' in the challenged embodiments is part of the wheel bearing assembly, not the seat, because it is in a permanently fixed rotational relationship with the wheel bearing assembly after over-moulding and cannot rotate relative to it.

Even if the 'stem' were considered part of the seat, there is no identifiable clasping mechanism component within the cavity as required by feature 1.10; the over-moulded plastic does not constitute a distinguishable clasping mechanism.

For the equivalence assessment, it is insufficient to focus solely on the overall objective task; the claimant must demonstrate the function of each substituted feature individually in achieving that objective.

The reversal of components required to arrive at the challenged embodiment constitutes a fundamental redesign involving simultaneous rearrangement of multiple components, and is therefore not obvious to the skilled person.

A skilled person would not understand from the patent that such significant modifications to almost all component arrangements would be covered, because the claim sets out specific arrangement requirements.

The patent in suit is valid; none of the prior art combinations put forward by the defendants establishes lack of novelty or inventive step of claim 1.

The 'stem' forms part of the seat and is received by the cavity of the base, so features 1.9 and 1.10 are literally infringed under the main request.

The challenged embodiments infringe features 1.4, 1.6, 1.9 and 1.10 by equivalent means because the design has merely been reversed (rotated 180°), and it does not matter from a technical point of view which component contains which element.

Starting from MB 13 combined with MB 9, the biasing member feature (1.5) of claim 1 would have been obvious to the skilled person.

The patent in suit lacks novelty over prior art documents MB 7, MB 9, MB 2, MB 2a, and MB 12.