UPC CFI 630/2025

No unreasonable delay: applicant acted sufficiently promptly after observing accused products at trade fairs and conducting infringement analysis

Hinweis: Court found the applicant reasonably waited for the CSI Frankfurt trade show to confirm infringement before filing, and then filed promptly.

Scope of device claim extends to embodiments where claimed structural features are present even if they do not achieve the full intended function (inferior embodiments)

Hinweis: Court confirmed as a headnote that limiting scope to achievement of unclaimed functions would inadequately protect the patent proprietor.

Burden of proof for patent invalidity in PI proceedings lies with the respondent; where both parties submit conflicting translations of prior art, the respondent bears the burden of justifying its translation

Hinweis: Court placed burden on respondent to substantiate its machine translation over the applicant's translation; unsubstantiated challenge meant the court applied the applicant's translation.

Infringement is established: the accused occlusion devices fall within the scope of EP 1 998 686 B2

Begründung: Court found that infringement was not established with the certainty required for provisional measures after the respondent specifically contested the applicant's submissions on infringement; expert evidence would be needed, which is not available in PI proceedings.