UPClytics
EnglishDeutsch
Sign inSign up
View all cases

ACT 555899/2023

—·EP3414708: ADAPTIVE SENSOR SAMPLING OF A COLD CHAIN DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM

Case details
Status
—
Action
Revocation
Category
Main Revocation Action
Parties
Claimants
Reps: Tilman Pfrang (Meissner Bolte Patentanwälte Rechtsanwälte Partnerschaft mbB)
Respondents
Reps: Gregory Lees (Dehns)
Division
Paris CD
Judges
Technology
Measurement & Instrumentation · Sensors · Computing & AI
Language
—
First decided
Jul 29, 2024
Claims
At issue1
Amended1
Notes: Revocation action attacked only claim 1 of EP3414708; patent maintained as amended per auxiliary request II modifying claim 1; other claims not challenged.
Decisions
  • 2024-07-29
    Patent amendedRevocation meritsRevocation Action

    The Paris Central Division rejected the revocation action filed by BITZER Electronics A/S against EP 3 414 708 (claim 1), maintaining claim 1 as amended by auxiliary request II submitted during the proceedings; costs were borne 60% by the claimant and 40% by the defendant.

    Legal issues:Revocation of cold chain monitoring patentAdmissibility of patent amendmentsAdmissibility of late revocation groundsScope of claims attacked in partial revocation action
Documents
  • 03E6FFB489935112BBC9A1AE34083C04_en.pdf2024-07-29EN
Coverage: Partial.Reasoning extracted with partial coverage — some sections may be incomplete.
Plain-English summary

BITZER Electronics sought revocation of Carrier Corporation's EP 3 414 708 (cold chain monitoring apparatus with adaptive sensor sampling). The Paris Central Division dismissed the revocation action as against the patent amended by auxiliary request II, finding that the prior art did not teach or suggest adjusting the sampling rate based on environmental altering or user-induced events. The court also set important procedural precedent on the admissibility of late-filed documents and the scope of permissible patent amendments in partial revocation proceedings.

Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • Amended claim 1 (auxiliary request II) is inventive over the cited prior art because none of the documents teach adjusting sampling rate based on environmental altering or user-induced events

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 56 EPC

    Note: The court found no motivation in the prior art to solve the technical problem by adjusting the sampling rate based on event triggers, rather than by other means such as more sophisticated devices or reduced measuring frequency.

  • Patent proprietor entitled to amend challenged claims by inserting features from non-challenged claims

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 65 UPCA; Rule 30 RoP

    Note: The court established that where a patent is only partially attacked, the proprietor may propose amendments to challenged claims by inserting features from non-attacked claims.

Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.

  • Late-filed prior art documents MB2 and MB4 should be admitted and undermine inventive step

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 56 EPC; Rule 9.2 RoP (advancement of proceedings)

    Reason: The late-filed documents did not relate to the defence raised by the opponent or the amendment application, and therefore did not constitute a legitimate response that would justify late filing; additionally MB2 was published after the priority date.

  • Request to amend patent is inadmissible with respect to non-challenged claims

    Claimant

    Reason: The court ruled the amendment request inadmissible only as to the non-challenged claims, but admissible as to challenged claims, so this argument was only partially accepted.

  • New grounds for revocation introduced in reply to defence constitute permissible arguments

    ClaimantLegal basis: Rule 9.2 RoP

    Reason: Grounds that could have been included in the initial statement of revocation are inadmissible if they do not relate to the defence or the amendment application.

Key legal principles
Doctrines and rules cited in the reasoning.
admissibility of patent amendments in partial revocation actionslate-filed documents and proportionate response rulepriority date cuts off prior art for inventive step (Art. 56 EPC)front-loaded procedure and inadmissibility of new grounds not responsive to defence

Browse other cases on this principle.

Prior art relied on
References cited and the role they played.
  • MB2 (European patent application published 9 September 2016)Obviousness combination
  • MB4 (unspecified prior art document)Obviousness combination
Claim construction notes

The contested claim 1 as amended under auxiliary request II requires a plurality of environmental sensors (specifically monitoring temperatures) each with a dedicated power source, an event detector for environmental altering or user-induced events, and a controller that adjusts the sampling rate depending on those events. The court did not extensively discuss individual term construction but analysed the distinctiveness of the event-triggered sampling rate adjustment feature.