UPClytics
DEEN
AnmeldenTesten
Alle Fälle anzeigen

UPC CFI 433/2024

25. Juli 2024·EP2671173 · METHOD AND MEANS FOR BROWSING BY WALKING

Folgen
Verfahrensdetails
Status
Case Closed (Patent nichtig)
Verfahrensart
Widerklage auf Nichtigkeit
Kategorie
Widerklage auf Nichtigkeit
Parteien
Kläger
Vertreter
Division
Paris CD
Richter
Technologie
  • Electrical engineering
    Telecommunications · Digital communication · Computer technology
Sprache
English
Erste Entscheidung
7. Jan. 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
Paris CDGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Paolo CatallozziGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Tatyana ZhilovaGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Wiem SamoudGesperrtGesperrt

Vor dem UPC: Microsoft Group (34 Verfahren)·Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy (29 Verfahren)

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

Dieser Streit umfasst 26 weitere Verfahren

UPC CoA 51/2026·UPC CoA 21/2026·UPC CFI 544/2026·UPC CoA 911/2025·UPC CoA 883/2025 und 21 weitere

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

Weitere Verfahren: Paris CD·2024

Entscheidungen
  • 2026-01-07
    Counterclaim for revocationÖffentlich

    Zusammenfassung: Decision of the Paris Central Division (Panel 2) dated 7 January 2026 on Microsoft Corporation's counterclaim for revocation of EP 2 671 173 (mobile location-based search technology) owned by Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy. The court found the patent invalid for lack of inventive step over prior art documents BP07 and BP08. Auxiliary Requests I through further auxiliary requests were examined: Auxiliary Request I was found inadmissible or failed on added subject-matter; subsequent auxiliary requests lacked clarity or were inadmissible. The patent was thus revoked. The decision also addresses the requirements for admissible patent amendment applications under R. 30 RoP.

    Rechtsfragen anzeigen (4)
    • Inventive step assessment
    • Application to amend the patent – admissibility requirements under R. 30 RoP
    • Added subject-matter under Art. 123(2) EPC
    • Clarity of auxiliary requests
Dokumente
Alle 239 Dokumente anzeigen
DokumenttitelDatumÖffentlich
Receipt2026-06-12Nicht öffentlich
Cover sheet2026-06-12Nicht öffentlich
Application document Applicant2026-06-12Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit Applicant2026-06-12Nicht öffentlich
Application document Applicant2026-06-12Nicht öffentlich
Verfahren abgeschlossen2026-03-31Nicht öffentlich
Receipt2026-02-09Nicht öffentlich
Cover sheet2026-02-09Nicht öffentlich
Application document Applicant2026-02-09Nicht öffentlich
Application document Applicant2026-02-09Nicht öffentlich
Zusammenfassung in einfacher Sprache

Microsoft Corporation filed a counterclaim for revocation of Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy's EP 2 671 173 (location-based mobile search / browsing by walking) at the Paris Central Division. The court found claim 1 invalid for added subject-matter (Art. 123(2) EPC) and independently for lack of inventive step over BP07 combined with BP08; all auxiliary requests either failed to remedy the defects or were inadmissible for non-compliance with R. 30 RoP because the scope of proposed amendments was insufficiently clear for the court to understand without subjective reconstruction.

Angenommene Argumente
Was das Gericht akzeptiert hat — nach Partei.

  • Claim 1 as granted lacks inventive step over EP 2 264 662 A1 (BP07) combined with US 2006/0253409 (BP08)

    Kläger

    Hinweis: BP07 discloses all features of claim 1 except the local area receiver and short-range search; BP08 teaches exactly that combination to solve the objective technical problem of increasing location-contextual relevance of search results.

  • Auxiliary Requests II–XVII are inadmissible for failure to comply with R. 30(1) RoP (unclear scope of proposed amendments)

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: R. 30(1) RoP

    Hinweis: Court found the proposed amendments left the court unable to unambiguously understand the scope of the claims without subjective reconstruction.

  • Patent as granted also contains added subject-matter in claim 1 (features 1.2 and 1.4)

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 123(2) EPC

    Hinweis: Court found the patent invalid for added subject-matter; Auxiliary Request I failed to remedy this defect.

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

  • Auxiliary Requests I–XVII save the patent from the invalidity attacks

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: R. 30(1) RoP; Art. 123(2) EPC

    Begründung: Auxiliary Request I did not remedy the added-matter defect; Requests II–XVII were inadmissible for failure to submit full sets of claims enabling unambiguous understanding of the proposed amendments.

Zentrale Rechtsgrundsätze
In der Begründung herangezogene Doktrinen und Regeln.
Problem-solution approach: objective technical problem must be identified from the distinguishing features before assessing obviousnessPatent amendment application must comply with R. 30 RoP (filing deadline, at least one amendment, official language, clarity, full claim set for substantive amendments)Court cannot assist parties in drafting amendments; amendments must be immediately intelligible without subjective reconstructionRequirements of R. 30(1) that are objective (deadline, language, inclusion of amendments) cause inadmissibility if not met; those that are discretionary (clarity, number, explanation) may lead to non-examinationAdded subject-matter assessed under Art. 123(2) EPC: features 1.2 and 1.4 not directly and unambiguously derivable from application as filed

Weitere Fälle zu diesem Grundsatz ansehen.

Herangezogener Stand der Technik
Zitierte Schriften und die Rolle, die sie gespielt haben.
  • EP 2 264 662 A1 (BP07)Erfindungsmüh-Kombination
  • US 2006/0253409 (BP08)Erfindungsmüh-Kombination
  • WO 2012/104474 (application as filed of EP 2 671 173)Hintergrund
Hinweise zur Anspruchsauslegung

The court construed claim 1 of EP 2 671 173 (method for browsing by walking) around features including a mobile station configured to receive information pages via short-range communication links and to search received pages (features 1.5-1.6). The court found these distinguishing features over BP07 are taught by BP08 to solve the problem of increasing location-contextual relevance of search results.