UPC_CFI_355/2023

LITHOGRAPHIC PRINTING PLATE ORIGINAL PLATE, AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING LITHOGRAPHIC PRINTING PLATE

VerletzungHauptverletzungsklageDusseldorf LDInfringementCase Closed

Übersicht Entscheidungen Begründung Zitate Dokumente Zeitverlauf

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

Zusammenfassung in einfacher Sprache

FUJIFILM brought infringement proceedings against three Kodak entities concerning EP 3 594 009 B1 (lithographic printing plate technology) before the Düsseldorf Local Division, which also had jurisdiction over the UK patent part. The court upheld the revocation counterclaim and revoked the patent across all Contracting Member States on grounds of added matter and obviousness, dismissing FUJIFILM's amendments as insufficient to cure the defect. The infringement action was accordingly dismissed and costs awarded to Kodak.

Angenommene Argumente

Was das Gericht akzeptiert hat — nach Partei.

EP 3 594 009 B1 is invalid for added matter (Art. 123(2) EPC): amended claims require subject-matter not directly and unambiguously taught in the original application
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 123(2) EPC; Art. 138(1)(c) EPC
Hinweis: The court applied a strict standard: direct teaching requires the subject-matter to be disclosed as a specific, clearly defined individual embodiment without deductive steps; unambiguous means beyond doubt, not merely probable.
UPC has jurisdiction over the UK part of the patent even when a revocation counterclaim is filed only for the German part, where the defendant is domiciled in a Contracting Member State
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: UPCA jurisdiction provisions; long-arm jurisdiction
Hinweis: Headnote 1: jurisdiction over UK part of infringement action is unaffected by a counterclaim for revocation limited to the German part.
Implicit disclosure means only the clear, immediate and unambiguous consequence of what is explicitly stated; a feature is implicitly disclosed if in carrying out the teaching the skilled person would inevitably arrive at it
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: EPO/UPC novelty doctrine
Hinweis: This standard was applied in assessing prior art disclosure and added matter alike.

Zurückgewiesene Argumente

Was das Gericht nicht akzeptiert hat — und warum.

Narrowing claim construction based on description or drawings to exclude what is literally covered by claim language
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 69 EPC and Protocol on Interpretation
Begründung: Claim terms should normally be given their broadest technically sensible meaning; Art. 69 EPC and Protocol do not justify narrowing construction based on description; narrowing is only permitted if there are convincing case-specific reasons.
Application to amend the patent (FUJIFILM's auxiliary requests)
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 123(2) EPC
Begründung: All amendment requests were dismissed; the added matter defect could not be cured.
Infringement action concerning EP 3 594 009 B1
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 65 UPCA
Begründung: Patent revoked; infringement action accordingly dismissed.

Zentrale Rechtsgrundsätze

In der Begründung herangezogene Doktrinen und Regeln.

Claim terms receive their broadest technically sensible meaning; description-based narrowing requires convincing case-specific reasons Implicit disclosure: only the clear, immediate and unambiguous consequence of what is explicitly stated; a feature is implicitly disclosed if inevitably present when carrying out the teaching Added matter under Art. 123(2) EPC: subject-matter must be directly (specific, clearly defined embodiment) and unambiguously (beyond doubt) taught in original application Long-arm jurisdiction: UPC has jurisdiction over UK patent part in infringement action where defendant is domiciled in a Contracting Member State, regardless of revocation counterclaim scope

Weitere Fälle zu diesem Grundsatz ansehen.

Hinweise zur Anspruchsauslegung

The Düsseldorf Local Division articulated a broad-meaning default for claim terms under Art. 69 EPC, rejecting any narrowing via description unless convincingly justified by individual case circumstances. This was applied in assessing both infringement scope and whether amendments introduced added matter.