UPC Analytics
DEEN
Übersicht · Eingereicht: 27. Sept. 2023

UPC_CFI_338/2023

MRI-SAFE DISK MAGNET FOR IMPLANTS

NichtigkeitHauptnichtigkeitsklageParis CDRevocationCase Closed
ÜbersichtEntscheidungenBegründungZitateDokumenteZeitverlauf
Abdeckung: Teilweise.Begründung teilweise extrahiert — einige Abschnitte können unvollständig sein.
Zusammenfassung in einfacher Sprache

Advanced Bionics challenged MED-EL's EP 4 074 373 (MRI-safe disk magnet for cochlear and other implants) by revocation action and counterclaim before the Paris Central Division. The court found the patent as granted contained added matter under Art. 123(2) EPC but maintained the patent in amended form (Auxiliary Request 0a), which restricted the claims to specific implant types with a rotatable disc-shaped attachment magnet; insufficiency and inventive-step attacks against the amended claims were also rejected. Costs were allocated 70% to Advanced Bionics and 30% to MED-EL.

Angenommene Argumente
Was das Gericht akzeptiert hat — nach Partei.

  • Patent valid as amended by Auxiliary Request 0a: claim 1 restricted to cochlear/middle ear/vestibular/laryngeal pacemaker implant systems with a rotatable disc-shaped attachment magnet in the implant coil housing

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 65 UPCA; Art. 138 EPC

    Hinweis: The added-matter objection applicable to the patent as granted was overcome by Auxiliary Request 0a; insufficiency and lack of inventive step were also not proven.

  • Insufficiency of disclosure not proven

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 83 EPC; Art. 138(1)(b) EPC

    Hinweis: Panel found the disclosure sufficient even applying a strict reading.

  • Lack of inventive step of Auxiliary Request 0a not proven

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 56 EPC

    Hinweis: Advanced Bionics' inventive step attack against the amended claim was rejected.

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

  • Patent as granted is invalid for added matter (Art. 123(2) EPC)

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 123(2) EPC

    Begründung: The added-matter objection was found valid for the patent as granted but overcome by the amendment in Auxiliary Request 0a; the panel resolved the case on the basis of the amended claim.

  • Inventor should be heard as a witness or expert

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: R. 181(1) RoP

    Begründung: The inventor may have a direct interest in the outcome and does not meet the R.181(1)(a)(b) requirements of impartiality, objectivity and independence for witnesses or experts.

  • Invalidity on grounds of insufficiency of disclosure and lack of inventive step against Auxiliary Request 0a

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Arts. 83, 56 EPC

    Begründung: Both grounds found not proven against the amended claims.

Zentrale Rechtsgrundsätze
In der Begründung herangezogene Doktrinen und Regeln.
Court may decide the case by resolving a logically subordinate issue first if that issue is more easily determinable (procedural efficiency principle)Inventor is not eligible to serve as witness or expert due to potential direct interest in outcome (R.181(1) RoP requirements of impartiality, objectivity and independence)Added matter overcome by narrowing amendment; remaining invalidity grounds then assessed against amended claimCosts partially attributable to patentee where patent required amendment: here 70% to claimants / 30% to defendant

Weitere Fälle zu diesem Grundsatz ansehen.

Hinweise zur Anspruchsauslegung

The amended Claim 1 (Auxiliary Request 0a) requires: a planar implant coil housing containing a signal receiver coil; a rotatable first attachment magnet within the coil housing plane with a magnetic dipole parallel to the plane; and that the implant system is specifically one of a cochlear, middle ear, vestibular, or laryngeal pacemaker implant. The disc shape or cut-away disc shape of the magnet is also specified. These restrictions were key to overcoming the added-matter objection to the granted claims.