UPClytics
DEEN
AnmeldenTesten
Alle Fälle anzeigen

UPC CFI 376/2023

23. Okt. 2023·EP2331036 · DEVICE FOR TREATING NIGHT TIME BREATHING PROBLEMS

Hauptaktenzeichen: ACT 581538/2023

Folgen
Verfahrensdetails
Status
Case Closed (Keine Verletzung)
Verfahrensart
Verletzung
Kategorie
Hauptverletzungsklage
Parteien
Kläger
  • Name withheld (GDPR)
Vertreter
Beklagte
Vertreter
Division
Brussels LD
Richter
Technologie
  • Instruments
    Medical technology
Sprache
Dutch
Erste Entscheidung
17. Sept. 2024
Im Vergleich
Die Bilanz des Gerichts für diese Art von Verfahren, gezählt in erstinstanzlichen Entscheidungen. Eine Zahl in Klammern gibt an, auf wie vielen Entscheidungen eine Quote beruht.
Verletzung festgestelltMedian Tage bis zur ersten Entscheidung
Gesamt-UPC53% (62/117)124
Brussels LDGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Samuel GranataGesperrtGesperrt
Richter András KupeczGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Margot KokkeGesperrtGesperrt

Vor dem UPC: OrthoApnea S.L. (7 Verfahren)

14 Tage kostenlos testenBereits Nutzer? Anmelden
Verwandte Verfahren
Alle Verfahren zu diesem Patent

3 weitere Beklagte zum selben oder einem verwandten Patent

UPC CoA 232/2025·UPC CoA 456/2024·UPC CoA 430/2024

Starten Sie die kostenlose Testphase, um die Ausgänge zu sehen.

Weitere Verfahren: Brussels LD·2023

Entscheidungen
  • 2025-01-17
    Infringement ActionÖffentlich

    Zusammenfassung: Decision on the merits by the Brussels Local Division (full panel) in an infringement action concerning a patent on a medical device (sleep apnea treatment). The court dismissed both the literal infringement claim and the infringement-by-equivalence claim against OrthoApnea S.L. and Vivisol B BV. On literal infringement, the court interpreted the patent claims in light of the claim as a whole and found the accused products did not meet all claim features. On equivalence, the court found no functional equivalence regardless of which equivalence test was applied. The court also lifted the earlier evidence-preservation order (seizure) and ordered the claimant (unnamed, anonymized) to pay the defendants' costs. A key procedural holding addressed the temporal conditions for bringing main proceedings following evidence preservation.

    Rechtsfragen anzeigen (5)
    • Literal infringement assessment under Art. 69 EPC and Protocol
    • Infringement by equivalence (functional equivalence test)
    • Temporal conditions for main proceedings following evidence preservation under Rule 198(1) RoP
    • Effect of service/upload date on Rule 198(1) compliance
    • Consequences of dismissal on evidence-preservation order (Rule 198(2) RoP)
  • 2024-09-17
    Infringement ActionÖffentlich

    Zusammenfassung: The Brussels Local Division issued a procedural order following an interim conference under R. 105.5 RoP, setting the schedule and framework for the oral hearing in this infringement action concerning EP 2 331 036.

    Rechtsfragen anzeigen (3)
    • Interim conference
    • Procedural schedule
    • R. 105.5 RoP
  • 2024-07-19
    Öffentlich

    Zusammenfassung: The Brussels Local Division (full panel) dismissed the respondents' application for review under R. 333 RoP of an earlier judge-rapporteur order that had denied their objection against the claimant's equivalence arguments introduced in the reply. The panel upheld the judge-rapporteur's finding that introducing an infringement argument based on equivalence in the reply did not constitute a fundamental new ground requiring prior leave under R. 263.1 RoP.

    Rechtsfragen anzeigen (3)
    • Review of judge-rapporteur order (R. 333 RoP)
    • Admissibility of equivalence arguments introduced in reply
    • Fundamental change of claim vs. new argument (R. 263.1 RoP)
Dokumente
Alle 293 Dokumente anzeigen
DokumenttitelDatumÖffentlich
Headnote-and-Keyword-Translated2025-01-21Nicht öffentlich
Headnote and Keywords2025-01-20Nicht öffentlich
Headnote-and-Keywords2025-01-19Nicht öffentlich
DecisionOutcome2025-01-17Nicht öffentlich
Decision2025-01-17Öffentlich
Decision2025-01-17Nicht öffentlich
Final Order - R.105.5 RoP2024-09-23Nicht öffentlich
Interim conference september 6th 20242024-09-23Nicht öffentlich
Interim conference september 6th 20242024-09-23Nicht öffentlich
Final Order - R.105.5 RoP2024-09-23Nicht öffentlich
Abdeckung: Teilweise.Begründung teilweise extrahiert — einige Abschnitte können unvollständig sein.
Zusammenfassung in einfacher Sprache

An anonymised claimant brought an infringement action before the Brussels Local Division against OrthoApnea and Vivisol B BV concerning a patent on a device for treating night-time breathing problems (EP2331036). The court dismissed the action in full, finding neither literal infringement — because the accused products did not meet all claim features when interpreted in context — nor infringement by equivalence, since no functional equivalence was demonstrated. The earlier evidence preservation order was lifted and costs were awarded to the defendants.

Angenommene Argumente
Was das Gericht akzeptiert hat — nach Partei.

  • No literal infringement: the accused OrthoApnea products do not meet all claim features when claims are interpreted in light of the claim as a whole

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 69 EPC and Protocol on Interpretation; Arts. 25-26 UPCA

    Hinweis: The court followed a two-step approach: first assessing literal infringement by interpreting the claims in context, finding one or more features absent.

  • No infringement by equivalence because there is no functional equivalence regardless of which equivalence test is applied

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 69 EPC Protocol; UPC doctrine of equivalents

    Hinweis: The court held that the absence of functional equivalence is a threshold bar to any equivalence finding, making the choice of test irrelevant.

  • Temporal condition for main proceedings following evidence preservation under R. 198(1) RoP is satisfied if the Statement of Claim is uploaded to CMS within the prescribed period, even if translation and service come later

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: R. 198(1) RoP; R. 271(8) RoP

    Hinweis: This procedural holding favoured neither party substantively but confirmed the claimant had validly brought main proceedings in time.

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

  • Literal infringement of the patent on the medical device (sleep apnea treatment) by OrthoApnea and Vivisol products

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 69 EPC; Art. 25 UPCA

    Begründung: Claim interpretation in light of the claim as a whole showed the accused products did not meet all required features of the claim.

  • Infringement by equivalence of the same patent claims

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 69 EPC Protocol; doctrine of equivalents

    Begründung: No functional equivalence was established, which the court treated as a prerequisite for any equivalence doctrine analysis.

Zentrale Rechtsgrundsätze
In der Begründung herangezogene Doktrinen und Regeln.
Two-step infringement analysis under Art. 69 EPC: literal infringement first, then equivalence if no literal infringementAbsence of functional equivalence bars any finding of infringement by equivalence regardless of which equivalence test is appliedFor evidence preservation followed by main proceedings, upload of Statement of Claim to CMS within R.198(1) period satisfies the temporal condition even if translation/service is completed later (R.271(8) RoP)Upon dismissal of infringement action, earlier evidence preservation order must be lifted and seized goods returned (R.198(2) RoP)Unsuccessful claimant bears defendant costs; damages from the seizure to be assessed in follow-on proceedings (R.125 RoP)

Weitere Fälle zu diesem Grundsatz ansehen.

Hinweise zur Anspruchsauslegung

The Brussels Local Division interpreted the claims of the sleep-apnea device patent (EP2331036) in context of the claim as a whole, applying Art. 69 EPC and its Protocol. The court found that one or more features required by the claims were not present in the accused products on literal reading. On equivalence, the court focused on whether the variant performed the same function; finding no functional equivalence, it did not reach other steps of equivalence analysis.