UPC_CFI_712/2025

SANDWICH SENSOR FOR THE DETERMINATION OF AN ANALYTE CONCENTRATION

Einstweilige MaßnahmenEinstweilige MaßnahmenDusseldorf LDProvisional measuresOral Phase

Übersicht Entscheidungen Begründung Zitate Dokumente Zeitverlauf

Abdeckung: Teilweise.Begründung teilweise extrahiert — einige Abschnitte können unvollständig sein.

Zusammenfassung in einfacher Sprache

Roche (F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG and Roche Diabetes Care GmbH) obtained a preliminary injunction from the Düsseldorf Local Division against A. Menarini Diagnostics entities for infringement of EP 1 962 668 B1, covering an implantable sandwich sensor for glucose monitoring. The court issued a recall and seizure order in France, Italy, and Germany, set important headnotes on the relationship between product and process claims and on the territorial scope of manufacturing injunctions, and ordered EUR 32,051 provisional cost reimbursement.

Angenommene Argumente

Was das Gericht akzeptiert hat — nach Partei.

Product claim scope is not limited by the corresponding independent process claim even where both are in the same patent
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Headnote 1 of the order
Hinweis: Court held that an independent process claim and its corresponding description are only relevant to the scope of a product claim if the specification indicates the process also describes characteristics of the claimed product.
An injunction covering 'making' of the infringing product can be issued even if manufacturing currently occurs outside UPC contracting states
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Headnote 2 of the order
Hinweis: Court confirmed that a manufacturing injunction may issue even where current production is by a third party outside contracting member states.
Menarini's implantable glucose sensor infringes EP 1 962 668 B1
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 62 UPCA
Hinweis: Preliminary injunction granted covering Germany, France, and Italy with recall, seizure, and disclosure orders.

Zurückgewiesene Argumente

Was das Gericht nicht akzeptiert hat — und warum.

Keine zurückgewiesenen Argumente erfasst.

Zentrale Rechtsgrundsätze

In der Begründung herangezogene Doktrinen und Regeln.

Independent process claim does not limit scope of independent product claim unless patent specification explicitly links process features to product characteristics Manufacturing injunction may cover products currently made outside contracting states by third parties Purposive claim construction: scope of device claim determined by its structural features, not by unclaimed functions described elsewhere in the specification

Weitere Fälle zu diesem Grundsatz ansehen.

Hinweise zur Anspruchsauslegung

The Düsseldorf court addressed the relationship between an independent product claim and an independent process claim in EP 1 962 668 B1. It held that the process claim is relevant to the product claim's scope only to the extent the specification indicates the process also describes properties of the claimed product itself. This limits any attempt by the defendant to narrow the product claim by importing limitations from the process claim.