UPClytics
DEEN
AnmeldenTesten
Alle Fälle anzeigen

UPC CFI 403/2025

12. Mai 2025·EP3295663 · DIGITALLY OVERLAYING AN IMAGE WITH ANOTHER IMAGE

Folgen
Verfahrensdetails
Status
Case Closed (Patent wie erteilt aufrechterhalten)
Verfahrensart
Widerklage auf Nichtigkeit
Kategorie
Widerklage auf Nichtigkeit
Parteien
Kläger
Vertreter
Beklagte
Vertreter
Division
Helsinki LD
Richter
Technologie
  • Electrical engineering
    Audio-visual technology
Sprache
English
Erste Entscheidung
29. Apr. 2026
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.
Patent nichtigMedian Tage bis zur ersten Entscheidung
Gesamt-UPC37% (34/91)124
Helsinki LD—Gesperrt
Richter Petri RinkinenGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Mélanie BessaudGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Samuel GranataGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Eric AugardeGesperrtGesperrt

Vor dem UPC: Supponor Group (14 Verfahren)·AIM SPORT VISION AG (1 Verfahren)

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

Dieser Streit umfasst 11 weitere Verfahren

UPC CoA 104/2026·UPC CoA 107/2026·UPC APP 1211/2025·UPC APP 65722/2024·UPC CoA 489/2023 und 6 weitere

1 weitere Beklagte zum selben oder einem verwandten Patent

UPC CoA 108/2026

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

Weitere Verfahren: Helsinki LD·2025

Entscheidungen
  • 2026-04-29
    Counterclaim for revocationÖffentlich

    Zusammenfassung: The Helsinki Local Division found EP 3 295 663 valid (rejecting TGI's counterclaim for revocation on grounds of added matter, novelty, and inventive step), but dismissed the infringement action because TGI's SVB System does not reproduce feature 12.5 of claim 12 either literally or by equivalent means. Specifically, the SVB System detects pixels of the billboard based on an artificially created infrared signature of the billboard, not based on an intrinsic image property of occluding objects. All requests relating to the AIR System were also rejected.

    Rechtsfragen anzeigen (9)
    • Claim construction of feature 12.5 (detection of occluding objects based on image property)
    • Literal infringement of claim 12 by SVB System
    • Infringement by equivalent means under Art. 2 Protocol on Interpretation of Art. 69 EPC
    • Added matter under Art. 123(2) / Art. 138(1)(c) EPC
    • Novelty over prior art (Rantalainen WO 2013/132032 A1, Nevatie WO 2013/186278 A1)
    • Inventive step over Rantalainen, Nevatie, Gupta
    • Prior use rights (not adjudicated as no infringement found)
    • Injunction over AIR System based on use of data from allegedly infringing SVB System
    • Cost allocation where patent valid but not infringed
Dokumente
Alle 163 Dokumente anzeigen
DokumenttitelDatumÖffentlich
Verfahren abgeschlossen2026-09-28Nicht öffentlich
Receipt2026-07-06Nicht öffentlich
Cover sheet2026-07-06Nicht öffentlich
Application document Defendant2026-07-06Nicht öffentlich
Mitteilung2026-07-03Nicht öffentlich
Mitteilung2026-05-30Nicht öffentlich
Receipt2026-05-29Nicht öffentlich
Cover sheet2026-05-29Nicht öffentlich
Application document Applicant2026-05-29Nicht öffentlich
Entscheidung2026-04-29Nicht öffentlich
Angenommene Argumente
Was das Gericht akzeptiert hat — nach Partei.

  • The SVB System does not reproduce feature 12.5 of claim 12 because it detects pixels of the billboard based on an artificially created infrared signature of the billboard (threshold values T1, T2, T3, T4 which are characteristics of the billboard), not based on an intrinsic image property of the occluding object.

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 25(b) UPCA; claim construction of feature 12.5

  • There is no technical equivalence because the SVB System does not detect occluding objects based on an intrinsic image property; it relies on a billboard-signature-based detection approach, which is a logical development of prior art (Rantalainen, Nevatie), not the new paradigm of the Patent.

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 2 Protocol on Interpretation of Art. 69 EPC; equivalence criteria from UPC_CFI_239/2023

  • The Patent is valid: no added matter (TGI's allegations were insufficiently substantiated beyond claim 5, and the combination of features was implicitly disclosed in the original application).

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 138(1)(c) EPC; Art. 123(2) EPC

  • The Patent is novel over Rantalainen because Rantalainen does not disclose feature 12.1.1.2 (display device configured to display a moving image) — Rantalainen's billboard uses IR-backlit static printed sheets, not a moving image display.

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 54(1) EPC

  • The Patent is novel over Nevatie because Nevatie does not disclose features 12.1.1.2, 12.3.1, and 12.5.

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 54(1) EPC

  • The Patent is inventive over combinations of Rantalainen, Nevatie, and Gupta because none of those documents individually or in combination suggest detecting occluding objects based on an intrinsic image property of the occluding object.

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 56 EPC
Zurückgewiesene Argumente
Was das Gericht nicht akzeptiert hat — und warum.

  • The SVB System's Secondary Key Value (MK2) in dual channel mode detects occluding objects based on their image properties (IR2 brightness as image property of occluding object), establishing literal infringement of feature 12.5.

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 25(b) UPCA; feature 12.5 of claim 12

  • The SVB System operating in dual channel mode infringes claim 12 by equivalent means because it ultimately achieves the same overall effect (non-occluded sections of billboard are overlaid).

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 2 Protocol on Interpretation of Art. 69 EPC

  • The AIR System's use should be enjoined because it was trained on data obtained by infringing use of the SVB System.

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 63(1) UPCA