UPC CFI 612/2024

The 'Ghost' grating product does not literally reproduce the claim 1 feature requiring longitudinal alignment of spacer elements and drainage openings

Hinweis: Court found the Ghost product's structural configuration differs from the claim requirement and no literal infringement was established.

Doctrine of equivalents cannot apply where the alleged equivalent function (improved fluid dynamics) is not disclosed or derivable from the patent by the skilled person

Hinweis: Court held RPN failed to show it was more likely than not that the skilled person could derive the fluidic improvement function unambiguously from the patent; respondent's expert testimony on fluid physics was more convincing.

Patent proprietor bears burden to show alleged equivalent function is derivable by skilled person from the patent

Hinweis: The court confirmed the plausibility/more-likely-than-not standard for equivalence, placing the burden on the claimant.

The Ghost product infringes claim 1 by equivalence because longitudinal alignment of spacers and openings serves the same function of improving water flow

Begründung: The function of improving fluid behaviour of water is neither claimed nor described in the patent; RPN failed to demonstrate it was more likely than not that the skilled person could deduce this function unambiguously from the patent.

Diagrams presented by claimant showed improved water trajectory justifying equivalence finding

Begründung: Respondent's European patent attorney testified at hearing that claimant's diagrams were unrealistic given physical factors (friction, gravity), and the court found this more convincing.