UPC CFI 539/2025

AsusTek has legal interest in pursuing revocation counterclaim despite patent expiry because the infringement action concerns past acts and potential retroactive damages

The patent is valid in its amended form; main claim and auxiliary requests survive challenges of added matter, novelty, and inventive step

The accused Intel AX201 and AX211 modules satisfy all features of claim 1 including the inductor with two loops with opposite current directions and terminals connected to the second loop

AsusTek as holder of the domain and sub-domains is responsible for offering and placing products on market via those websites

The term 'offer' under Art. 25 UPCA is interpreted broadly in an economic sense, not requiring a legally binding contractual offer or price specification

AsusTek argued it has no legal interest in revocation because the patent has expired

AsusTek argued the accused modules do not satisfy feature 1.1B (inductor) because functionality depends on frequency and environment, and images are insufficient to prove inductive function

AsusTek argued feature 1.2 (substantial symmetry) is not met because current flow is not symmetric about the axis

AsusTek argued feature 1.5 (terminals connected to second loop) is not met and cannot be confirmed from the provided images

AsusTek argued it cannot be liable for offers and sales on local sub-domains because it has no operational control over those sub-domains

AsusTek argued by analogy with the Belkin/Philips decision on directors' liability that lack of operational control over sub-domains should shield it from liability