UPC CFI 480/2025

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

• 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