UPC_CFI_43/2025

SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR CONTROLLING POSITION

VerletzungHauptverletzungsklageThe Hague LDInfringementCase Closed

Übersicht Entscheidungen Begründung Zitate Dokumente Zeitverlauf

Zusammenfassung in einfacher Sprache

Advanced Brain Monitoring Inc.'s infringement action against Koninklijke Philips N.V. and related entities concerning EP 2 437 696 B2 (wearable position therapy device for sleep disorders) was dismissed by The Hague Local Division after Philips' counterclaim for revocation succeeded. The Court found claim 1 anticipated by JP748 (1990s Japanese PTD using a mercury switch), and the Auxiliary Request obvious over JP748 because the EU mercury prohibition in force from 2006 made accelerometers the obvious replacement for mercury switches in such devices at the 2009 priority date, supported by common general knowledge from standard engineering handbooks.

Angenommene Argumente

Was das Gericht akzeptiert hat — nach Partei.

EP 2 437 696 B2 lacks inventive step over JP748 (Japanese patent on position therapy device)
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 56 EPC
Hinweis: Court found that all features of claim 1 were disclosed in JP748 except the accelerometer; replacing the mercury switch angle sensor in JP748 with an accelerometer was obvious at the 2009 priority date given mandatory EU prohibition of mercury from 2006 and common general knowledge that accelerometers were standard components in this field.
JP748 is a realistic starting point for inventive step analysis
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 56 EPC; problem-solution approach
Hinweis: Court dismissed ABM's belated challenge at oral hearing that JP748 was not a realistic starting point, noting JP748 relates to the same technical field and solves the same perceived problems as the patent.
Claim 1 of the Auxiliary Request is also obvious over JP748 with accelerometer modification
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 56 EPC
Hinweis: Limiting claim 1 to an accelerometer-based position detector in the AR did not save the patent because the skilled person in 2009 was forced to replace the mercury switch with an accelerometer given EU mercury prohibition, and accelerometers were common general knowledge for such applications.

Zurückgewiesene Argumente

Was das Gericht nicht akzeptiert hat — und warum.

ABM's belated (oral hearing) challenge that JP748 is not a realistic starting point for inventive step
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 56 EPC
Begründung: JP748 relates to the same technical field (position therapy for sleep disorders) and addresses the same perceived problems; it was properly identified as a realistic starting point. The belated timing of the challenge was also noted.
Dependent claim 2 (adaptive feedback) saves the patent
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 56 EPC
Begründung: Adaptive feedback (claim 2) requiring a more advanced microcontroller was obvious at the priority date given common general knowledge of contemporary microprocessors; claim 2 also disclosed in JP748 so it cannot save the patent.
Infringement of EP 2 437 696 B2 by Philips' sleep therapy devices
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 65 UPCA
Begründung: As the patent was found entirely invalid, the infringement action failed and all ABM requests were dismissed without reaching the infringement merits.

Zentrale Rechtsgrundsätze

In der Begründung herangezogene Doktrinen und Regeln.

problem-solution approach: realistic starting point must address same technical field and problems inventive step: regulatory constraints (EU mercury prohibition from 2006) as factor forcing skilled person toward alternative common general knowledge of accelerometers in wearable devices at 2009 priority date belated challenges to starting point rejected complete invalidity leads to automatic failure of infringement action without further examination partial opt-out withdrawal: patent must have been opted out first, then withdrawn to confer UPC jurisdiction

Weitere Fälle zu diesem Grundsatz ansehen.

Herangezogener Stand der Technik

Zitierte Schriften und die Rolle, die sie gespielt haben.

JP748 (Japanese patent on position therapy device, circa 1990/1991)Neuheitsschädlich
P25 (Handbook of Modern Sensors, 2003)Hintergrund
P28 (textbook for sleep medicine, evidencing accelerometers in wrist actigraphy)Hintergrund

Hinweise zur Anspruchsauslegung

Claim 1 of EP 2 437 696 B2 (as maintained in B2 form after EPO opposition proceedings) covers a wearable position therapy device (PTD) with a position detector to detect patient position and provide feedback to discourage sleeping in the wrong position. The contested feature distinguishing over JP748 was the accelerometer (in the Auxiliary Request); the Court construed the position detector in the main claim broadly enough to be anticipated by JP748's mercury tilt switch, and found the accelerometer substitution obvious.