UPClytics
DEEN
AnmeldenTesten
Alle Fälle anzeigen

UPC CFI 461/2025

6. Juni 2025·EP1516720 · Composite element comprising a polyurethane adhesion promoter

Folgen
Verfahrensdetails
Status
Case Closed (Patent geändert aufrechterhalten)
Verfahrensart
Nichtigkeit
Kategorie
Hauptnichtigkeitsklage
Parteien
Kläger
Vertreter
Beklagte
Vertreter
Division
Paris CD
Richter
Technologie
  • Chemistry
    Basic materials chemistry · Surface technology, coating
  • Other fields
    Civil engineering
Sprache
German
Erste Entscheidung
22. 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
Paris CDGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Maximilian HaedickeGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Tatyana ZhilovaGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Nicolai GeierGesperrtGesperrt

Vor dem UPC: Huntsman (EUROPE) BV (4 Verfahren)·BASF Group (6 Verfahren)

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

Dieser Streit umfasst 4 weitere Verfahren

UPC CFI 2800/2026·UPC CoA 96/2026·UPC CFI 1780/2026·UPC CoA 62/2026

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

Weitere Verfahren: Paris CD·2025

Entscheidungen
  • 2026-04-22
    Revocation ActionÖffentlich

    Zusammenfassung: The revocation action against EP 1 516 720 was dismissed as to the granted form: claims 1 and 4 lack inventive step starting from D19, and claim 9 lacks novelty over D19, so the patent in its granted form is declared invalid. However, the patent is maintained in the amended form of Auxiliary Request 1, which narrows the adhesion-promoter composition in claims 1 and 9 to polyisocyanates reacted with polyetherols and/or polyesterols at a defined isocyanate index. Costs are split 70% claimants / 30% respondent, with the court ruling only on claimants' costs as respondent filed no cost request.

    Rechtsfragen anzeigen (8)
    • standing/legal interest (Rechtsschutzinteresse) to challenge an expired patent
    • admissibility of corrected auxiliary requests (editorial amendments)
    • claim construction of 'reactive adhesion promoter layer' and 'noch reaktionsfähig'
    • novelty of claims 1, 4, 9 over D11 (WO 99/00559) and D14 (GB 1 356 564)
    • lack of inventive step of claims 1 and 4 starting from D19 (WO 98/01279)
    • lack of novelty of claim 9 over D19
    • density ranges (features 2.2.3 and 2.3.2) as routine technical choices within common general knowledge
    • validity of Auxiliary Request 1 — admissibility under Art. 123(2) EPC and patentability
Dokumente
Alle 215 Dokumente anzeigen
DokumenttitelDatumÖffentlich
Other Documents2026-08-07Nicht öffentlich
Other Documents2026-06-29Nicht öffentlich
Receipt2026-06-22Nicht öffentlich
Cover sheet2026-06-22Nicht öffentlich
Application document Defendant2026-06-22Nicht öffentlich
Receipt2026-06-11Nicht öffentlich
Cover sheet2026-06-11Nicht öffentlich
Application document Claimant2026-06-11Nicht öffentlich
Receipt2026-05-22Nicht öffentlich
Cover sheet2026-05-22Nicht öffentlich
Angenommene Argumente
Was das Gericht akzeptiert hat — nach Partei.

  • Legal interest to bring revocation action exists even after patent expiry because respondent threatened damages claims for the in-force period (Belgian evidence-preservation proceedings)

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 65 UPCA; general procedural law on Rechtsschutzinteresse

  • Claims 1, 4 and 9 are novel over D11 because D11 does not disclose: (a) the required density of the adhesion-promoter layer (feature 2.2.3), and (b) the adhesion-promoter being applied as a still-reactive two-component liquid mixture

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 54 EPC

  • Claims 1, 4 and 9 are novel over D14 because D14 discloses a single-component isocyanate prepolymer adhesive, not a two-component reactive mixture, and does not disclose polyurethane-containing adhesion promoter with the claimed density

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 54 EPC

  • Claims 1 and 4 lack inventive step starting from D19, because D19 already discloses the two-component reactive polyurethane adhesion promoter applied in liquid form while still reactive, and the remaining distinguishing features (density ranges 2.2.3 and 2.3.2) represent routine technical choices within common general knowledge as evidenced by D12 and D11

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 56 EPC

  • Claim 9 lacks novelty over D19 because D19 discloses the same use of a reactive polyurethane adhesion promoter still reactive when foam is applied, and claim 9 contains no density limitation to distinguish it

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 54 EPC

  • Auxiliary Request 1 is not an inadmissible intermediate generalisation: the patentee may choose the scope of its amendment, and claim 1 as granted does not require identity between the first and second adhesion-promoter applications

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 123(2) EPC

  • The arguments raised by claimants against Auxiliary Request 1 (D9, D10, D11, D14) cannot undermine patentability given those same documents failed against the granted claims

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 54, 56 EPC
Zurückgewiesene Argumente
Was das Gericht nicht akzeptiert hat — und warum.

  • Claims 1, 4 and 9 lack inventive step starting from D11 in combination with D14, D19, D20 or D21 because those combinations would lead the skilled person to the claimed reactive two-component adhesion promoter

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 56 EPC

  • Claims 1 and 4 lack inventive step starting from D22, even in combination with D14, D20 or D21

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 56 EPC

  • Auxiliary Request 1 claims 1 and 9 are unclear because features 3.2.1/Vw2.2.1 implicitly presuppose that the reaction is complete before application

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 84 EPC

  • Auxiliary Request 1 constitutes an inadmissible intermediate generalisation because the restriction to specific polyols in step B is not applied equally to the optional second adhesion-promoter in step D

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 123(2) EPC

  • The adhesion promotion in the patent is achieved merely by using a PUR adhesion-promoter layer as such, without the layer needing to remain reactive at the time of foam application

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: claim construction / Art. 69 EPC