UPC CFI 727/2024

Feature 1.9 'abuts' requires actual contact between the second rolling body row and the encircling edge in the opened state; the broad interpretation that any position on the conical top satisfies the claim is incorrect

The defendants' products do not implement feature 1.9 because the second rolling body row sits at a spatial distance from the encircling edge in the opened state, as confirmed by physical samples and claimant's own technical drawings (Annexes 27/28)

Formstein/Gillette defence: the defendants' products correspond to prior art embodiments (particularly D1, D2) in which the sleeve runs onto rolling body rows sequentially rather than simultaneously, and therefore cannot infringe either literally or under equivalents

Original claim 1 of EP'263 lacks novelty in light of D3 (US 2,774,430) which discloses the key features, rendering the unamended patent partially invalid

Auxiliary Request 1 (combining claims 1 and 3) satisfies Art. 84, 123(2) and 123(3) EPC and renders the patent valid in amended form

A plurality of protruding guiding bodies (feature 1.4) is indeed present in defendants' products, consistent with defendants' own novelty arguments regarding D1/D2

Feature 1.9 'opened state' should be interpreted broadly to include any transitional phase toward the closed position, so that it makes no difference whether the second rolling body row abuts the edge or rests elsewhere on the conical top

The alleged infringing products infringe literally or under the doctrine of equivalents because the functional simultaneous loading effect is achieved regardless of the exact position of the second rolling body row

Counterclaim for revocation of the patent based on lack of novelty or inventive step as to D1, D2, D4, D5-D8, D9