UPC CFI 613/2024
23. Okt. 2024·EP3397329 · AIR-FLOW IN A NEBULIZER HEAD
- Verfahrensdetails
- StatusCase Closed (Patent geändert aufrechterhalten)VerfahrensartNichtigkeitKategorieHauptnichtigkeitsklage
- Parteien
- Beklagte
- Koninklijke Philips N.V.Unternehmen
Vertreter- Michael Adrianus Josephus Ras-Philips International B.V.
- Division
- Milan CD
- Technologie
- InstrumentsMedical technology
- Sprache
- English
- Erste Entscheidung
- 27. Nov. 2025
| Patent nichtig | Median Tage bis zur ersten Entscheidung | |
|---|---|---|
| Gesamt-UPC | 37% (34/91) | 124 |
| Milan CD | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Andrea Postiglione | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Anna-Lena Klein | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Koen Callewaert | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
Vor dem UPC: Pari Pharma GmbH (1 Verfahren)·Philips Group (46 Verfahren)
- 2025-11-27Revocation ActionÖffentlich
Zusammenfassung: The Milan Central Division dismissed Pari Pharma's revocation action against Philips' nebulizer patent EP 3 397 329 (unitary effect), upholding the patent after finding the prior art combinations relied upon by the claimant do not render the invention obvious to the skilled person.
Rechtsfragen anzeigen (3)
- Inventive step (nebulizer head air-flow patent)
- Standing under Art. 47(6) UPCA
- Claim construction of schematic figures
- 2025-11-27Revocation ActionÖffentlich
Zusammenfassung: The Milan Central Division (full panel: Postiglione, Klein, Callewaert) rectified an obvious slip in its final decision of 27 November 2025 in the revocation action brought by Pari Pharma GmbH against Koninklijke Philips N.V. concerning EP 3 397 329. The decision had incorrectly stated that the patent is registered with unitary effect; this sentence was deleted. The parties did not object.
Rechtsfragen anzeigen (2)
- Rectification of obvious slip in decision (R. 353 RoP)
- Unitary patent vs. European patent with national designations
| Dokumenttitel | Datum | Öffentlich |
|---|---|---|
| Mitteilung | 2026-02-27 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Other Documents | 2026-02-27 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Anordnung | 2026-02-24 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Order | 2026-02-24 | Öffentlich |
| Anordnung | 2026-02-06 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Order | 2026-02-06 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Verfahren abgeschlossen | 2025-11-28 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Entscheidung | 2025-11-27 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Decision | 2025-11-27 | Öffentlich |
| Other Documents | 2025-10-07 | Nicht öffentlich |
Pari Pharma GmbH brought a revocation action at the Milan Central Division against Koninklijke Philips N.V.'s EP 3 397 329 (air-flow in a nebuliser head). The court found claim 1 as granted lacked novelty over D1 but upheld the patent in amended form pursuant to auxiliary request 2, rejecting all obviousness attacks including the D3+D7+D5 combination because D3 teaches away from omitting the inhalation valve. A subsequent rectification order corrected an error stating the patent had unitary effect.
Any entity operating in the technical field and potentially needing freedom to operate has standing to bring a revocation action
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 47(6) UPCAHinweis: Court confirmed Pari Pharma had standing as a company potentially needing freedom to operate in the nebuliser field.
Claim 1 as granted lacks novelty over D1
KlägerHinweis: The court accepted that claim 1 as granted is anticipated by D1; this drove the need for the patent to be maintained in amended form.
Auxiliary request 2 claim 1 is inventive over all prior art combinations relied upon by claimant
BeklagterHinweis: Court found that D3 teaches away from omitting the inhalation valve and the skilled person would not combine D3 with D7 and D5 to arrive at the claimed invention.
Skilled person will not directly and unambiguously deduce dimensions from schematic figures
BeklagterHinweis: Court held as a headnote principle that schematic figures cannot serve as a source of dimensional disclosure.
Combination of D3 with D7 and D5 renders auxiliary request 2 obvious
KlägerBegründung: D3 is directed to a device that accumulates aerosol during exhalation using an inhalation valve — an essential feature; there is no hint to remove the valve and D3 teaches away from omitting it, so the combination is not obvious.
Attack based on Pari eMotion plus D2 or D7 plus D5 against claim 1 as amended
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: UPC RoP front-loaded proceedings principleBegründung: This attack was raised for the first time at oral hearing and is precluded by the front-loaded nature of UPC proceedings; claimant should have anticipated the narrower claim construction and presented this attack earlier.
Weitere Fälle zu diesem Grundsatz ansehen.
- D1Neuheitsschädlich
- D2Erfindungsmüh-Kombination
- D3Erfindungsmüh-Kombination
- D5Erfindungsmüh-Kombination
- D7Erfindungsmüh-Kombination
- Pari eMotion (prior art device)Erfindungsmüh-Kombination
The court construed claim 1 as amended (auxiliary request 2) of EP 3 397 329 (nebuliser head airflow) more narrowly than the claimant anticipated, particularly regarding the 'backside opening' feature. The claimant expected the respondent would accept any opening behind the aperture surface as qualifying; the court found there was reason to anticipate the narrower construction, making the late-raised Pari eMotion attack precluded.