UPClytics
DEEN
AnmeldenTesten
Alle Fälle anzeigen

UPC CFI 480/2025

29. Mai 2025·EP4185356 Einheitspatent · NASAL CANNULA

Folgen
Verfahrensdetails
Status
Case Closed (Patent nichtig)
Verfahrensart
Nichtigkeit
Kategorie
Hauptnichtigkeitsklage
Parteien
Beklagte
Vertreter
Division
Milan CD
Richter
Technologie
  • Instruments
    Medical technology
Sprache
English
Erste Entscheidung
15. Jan. 2026
Letzte Entscheidung
10. 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
Milan CDGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Andrea PostiglioneGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Anna-Lena KleinGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Kerstin RoselingerGesperrtGesperrt

Vor dem UPC: Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Limited (2 Verfahren)·Flexicare (Group) Limited (2 Verfahren)

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

Dieser Streit umfasst 1 weitere Verfahren

UPC CFI 1472/2026

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

Weitere Verfahren: Milan CD·2025

Entscheidungen
  • 2026-04-10
    Öffentlich

    Zusammenfassung: The Central Division Milan revoked European Patent EP 4 185 356 in its entirety with effect on all UPC Contracting Member States, finding that claim 1 as granted and auxiliary request 1 lack novelty over prior art document D2 (WO 2015/193833 A2). Auxiliary requests 2 to 13 were found not allowable due to lack of clarity under Art. 84 EPC, and the application to amend the patent was dismissed.

    Rechtsfragen anzeigen (6)
    • Novelty (Art. 54 EPC) — claim 1 and AR1 lack novelty over prior art D2 (WO 2015/193833 A2)
    • Claim interpretation — meaning of 'manifold', 'connector', 'swivel connection', 'selective retainer means'
    • Admissibility and allowability of auxiliary requests
    • Clarity (Art. 84 EPC) — AR2-AR13 lack clarity regarding whether gas tube is a mandatory component
    • Added matter (Art. 123(2) EPC) — raised but left open as clarity/novelty dispositive
    • Mapping of prior art components to claim features when different labels are used in prior art
  • 2026-01-15
    Revocation ActionÖffentlich

    Zusammenfassung: The Milan Central Division (full panel: Postiglione, Klein, Roselinger) rejected Fisher & Paykel's request to introduce auxiliary requests 2A to 13A as subsequent amendments to the patent (EP 4 185 356) in the revocation proceedings. The Court held that under R. 50.2 and R. 30.2 RoP, subsequent amendments are only allowed on an exceptional basis; the preclusive nature of the front-loaded system means that amendments must be made in full at the earliest stage. The efficiency of proceedings is not a sufficient reason to allow subsequent piecemeal amendments.

    Rechtsfragen anzeigen (3)
    • Subsequent amendments to patent (R. 50.2, R. 30.2 RoP)
    • Front-loaded system and preclusive nature of pleadings
    • Admissibility of auxiliary requests
Dokumente
Alle 204 Dokumente anzeigen
DokumenttitelDatumÖffentlich
Other Documents2026-06-11Nicht öffentlich
Receipt2026-04-30Nicht öffentlich
Cover sheet2026-04-30Nicht öffentlich
Application document Applicant2026-04-30Nicht öffentlich
Verfahren abgeschlossen2026-04-10Nicht öffentlich
Entscheidung2026-04-10Nicht öffentlich
Decision2026-04-10Öffentlich
Mitteilung2026-04-09Nicht öffentlich
Hearing recording reference document2026-02-27Nicht öffentlich
Receipt2026-02-24Nicht öffentlich
Angenommene Argumente
Was das Gericht akzeptiert hat — nach Partei.

  • Frame portion 102 in D2 constitutes a 'manifold' in the sense of claim 1, and component 114 (labelled 'manifold' in D2) constitutes a 'connector', such that all features of claim 1 as granted are directly and unambiguously disclosed by D2

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 54 EPC; novelty assessment based on overall disclosure of prior art document

  • AR2-AR13 lack clarity because the newly added feature referring to 'the aperture fluidically connects the gas tube to the manifold' leaves the skilled person in doubt whether the gas tube is a mandatory component of the nasal cannula

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 84 EPC; Rule 50.2 RoP

  • Swivel connection is not limited to single-axis rotation; both single-axis and multi-axis rotational arrangements fall within claim 1

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

  • Gas tube is not a mandatory component of the nasal cannula as claimed in claim 1 as granted

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Claim interpretation under Art. 69 EPC
Zurückgewiesene Argumente
Was das Gericht nicht akzeptiert hat — und warum.

  • Component 114 (labelled 'manifold' in D2) must be mapped to the 'manifold' of claim 1, and the frame portion 102 cannot constitute the manifold because it does not direct gas from the inlet at the connector-manifold connection to the nasal prong outlets

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Claim interpretation under Art. 69 EPC

  • 'Swivel connection' in claim 1 is limited to rotation about a single axis of rotation

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Claim interpretation under Art. 69 EPC

  • The nasal cannula requires that the gas supply tube not be disconnected during use (continuous airflow requirement)

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Claim interpretation under Art. 69 EPC

  • AR1 is not novel over D2 only if component 114 is mapped as the 'manifold'; under the defendant's preferred mapping AR1 is novel

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 54 EPC

  • AR1 was inadequately substantiated and therefore inadmissible

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Rule 50.2 RoP