UPClytics
ENDE
Sign inStart trial
View all cases

UPC CFI 137/2025

Feb 21, 2025·EP3567356 · SNIFFING LEAK DETECTOR WITH SWITCHING VALVE AND BUFFER CHAMBER

Follow
Case details
Status
Case Closed (No infringement)
Action
Infringement
Category
Main infringement action
Parties
Claimants
Representatives
Division
Dusseldorf LD
Judges
Technology
  • Instruments
    Measurement
Language
English
First decided
Oct 6, 2026
How this compares
The court's record for this kind of case, counted in first-instance rulings. A figure in brackets is the number of rulings a rate rests on.
Infringement foundMedian days to first decision
All UPC53% (62/117)124
Dusseldorf LDLockedLocked
Judge Berenice ThomLockedLocked
Judge Ingo RinkenLockedLocked
Judge Marije KnijffLockedLocked
Judge Ulrike HolzLockedLocked

At the UPC: Inficon GmbH (2 cases)·Elitech Technology, Inc. (2 cases)

Start 14-day free trialAlready a user? Sign in
Related cases
All proceedings on this patent

This dispute contains 1 other proceedings

UPC CFI 512/2025

Start a free trial to see how each one ended.

More cases: Dusseldorf LD·2025

Decisions
  • 2026-10-06
    InfringementPublic

    Summary: The Düsseldorf LD dismissed Inficon's infringement action against Elitech over EP 3 567 356 (the METRUM gas detector does not realise feature 5, a buffer chamber permitting homogeneous mixing; the claimant's measurements were inconclusive, so no specific contesting under R. 171.2 RoP was needed) and dismissed Elitech's counterclaim for revocation, holding claim 1 novel over CC1 and inventive. Each side bears the costs of the claim it lost; the interim costs request was refused; values EUR 1m and EUR 1.5m, cost ceiling EUR 400,000.

    Show the legal issues (4)
    • No specific contesting required under R. 171.2 RoP where the claimant's measurements are unconvincing from the outset
    • Claim construction of 'buffer chamber' permitting homogeneous mixing
    • Inventive step per Meril v Edwards / Amgen v Sanofi: no pointer or motivation shown
    • No interim award of costs under R. 150.2 RoP where success is split
Documents
Show all 118 documents
Document titleDatePublic
Hearing recording reference document2026-10-13Not public
Publication of decision2026-10-06Not public
Case closed2026-10-06Not public
Decision2026-10-06Not public
Decision2026-10-06Public
Receipt2026-08-26Not public
Cover sheet2026-08-26Not public
Document Claimant2026-08-25Not public
Oral procedure opened2026-08-25Not public
Other Documents2026-08-25Public
Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • The attacked METRUM device does not have a buffer chamber in which incoming reference gas is homogeneously mixed with remaining gas (feature 5); the delay in Exhibit TW 11 is not attributable to the housing

    RespondentLegal basis: Claim 1, feature 5; R. 171.2 RoP

  • CC1's blank filter 436 is not a buffer chamber, and the defendants showed no pointer or motivation towards the claimed solution

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 54, 56 EPC; Art. 65 UPCA
Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.

  • Claim 1 lacks novelty over CC1 and inventive step

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 54, 56 EPC

  • The defendants' failure to produce their own measurements makes the claimant's measurements undisputed

    ClaimantLegal basis: R. 171.2 RoP