UPClytics
DeutschEnglish
AnmeldenRegistrieren
Alle Fälle anzeigen

UPC CoA 93/2026

11. Juni 2026·EP2352431 +1 more: METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR CONTROLLING X-RAY FOCAL SPOT CHARACTERISTICS FOR TOMOSYNTHESIS AND MAMMOGRAPHY IMAGING

Folgen
Verfahrensdetails
Status
Written Phase
Verfahrensart
Berufung
Kategorie
Hauptberufung
Ergebnis in diesem Verfahren
Nur prozessual
Parteien
Beklagte
Vertreter: Matthias Meyer (Bird & Bird LLP)
Division
Court of Appeal
Richter
Technology
Electric Techniques
Sprache
English
Erste Entscheidung
15. Juli 2026
Entscheidungen
  • 2026-07-15
    BerufungsentscheidungAppeal

    The Court of Appeal rejected the Siemens Healthineers entities' application for suspensive effect of their appeal against the Local Division Düsseldorf's infringement decision of 10 June 2026 (UPC-CFI-758/2024). The Court found no manifest error in the Local Division's claim interpretation of feature 4.1, nor any infringement of the appellants' right to be heard, and rejected the auxiliary request regarding the injunction scope against Appellants 3 and 4.

    Rechtsfragen:Suspensive effect of appeal (Art. 74 UPCA)Manifest error standard for suspensive effectRight to be heard (Art. 76(2) UPCA; Art. 6 ECHR)Claim interpretation of functional features (feature 4.1 - focal spot positioning)Injunction scope against entities not previously found to have committed specific infringing acts
Dokumente
DokumenttitelDatumÖffentlich
action.publishOrderDecision.order2026-07-15Nicht öffentlich
action.issueOrder.order2026-07-15Nicht öffentlich
Order2026-07-15Öffentlich
Receipt2026-07-03Nicht öffentlich
Cover sheet2026-07-03Nicht öffentlich
Submission Respondent2026-07-03Nicht öffentlich
action.issueOrder.order2026-06-25Nicht öffentlich
Order2026-06-25Öffentlich
action.communication.general2026-06-24Nicht öffentlich
Other Documents2026-06-24Nicht öffentlich
Receipt2026-06-22Nicht öffentlich
Cover sheet2026-06-22Nicht öffentlich
Fee2026-06-22Nicht öffentlich
Proof of payment2026-06-22Nicht öffentlich
Application Appellant2026-06-22Nicht öffentlich
Application Appellant2026-06-22Nicht öffentlich
action.publishOrderDecision.case2026-06-16Nicht öffentlich
Receipt2026-06-11Nicht öffentlich
Cover sheet2026-06-11Nicht öffentlich
Fee2026-06-11Nicht öffentlich
Proof of payment2026-06-11Nicht öffentlich
Statement of Appeal2026-06-11Nicht öffentlich
Angenommene Argumente
Was das Gericht akzeptiert hat — nach Partei.

  • Local Division's functional interpretation of claim feature 4.1 (taking description into account) was not manifestly incorrect; the mere fact that the Local Division's interpretation differs from the Appellants' does not render it manifestly erroneous

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 74 UPCA; manifest error standard

  • Local Division satisfied its obligation to address the Appellants' core arguments regarding feature 4.1 in the impugned decision (paras. 24, 36, 37, 123-128), fulfilling the right to be heard

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 76(2) UPCA; Art. 77(1) UPCA; R. 350.4 RoP; Art. 6 ECHR

  • As a general rule, proof of past infringement is sufficient to establish a risk of further infringing acts, including acts of use not previously committed (per UPC-CoA-789/2025, Dyson v. Dreame)

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: UPC-CoA-789/2025 (Dyson v. Dreame)
Zurückgewiesene Argumente
Was das Gericht nicht akzeptiert hat — und warum.

  • The Local Division's interpretation of claim feature 4.1 (requiring the focal spot to be fixed 'in one position') was manifestly incorrect because it disregarded part of the claim wording

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 74 UPCA; manifest error

  • The Local Division violated the right to be heard by not adequately addressing the Appellants' submissions regarding the 'in one position' requirement

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 76(2) UPCA; Art. 6 ECHR

  • The injunction against Appellants 3 and 4 was manifestly incorrect because it was based only on marketing material and covered acts of use not previously committed by those entities

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 74 UPCA; manifest error