UPC Analytics
ENDE
Overview · Filed: Jan 14, 2025

UPC_CFI_26/2025

PACKAGE, IN PARTICULAR FOR FOOD PRODUCTS

InfringementMain Infringement ActionVienna LDInfringementCase Closed
OverviewDecisionsReasoningCitationsDocumentsTimeline
Coverage: Partial.Reasoning extracted with partial coverage — some sections may be incomplete.
Plain-English summary

Messerle GmbH sued Sabert Corporation Europe for infringement of EP 3 705 415 B1 (a food packaging patent) by Sabert's 'Tray2Go' product. The Vienna Local Division dismissed both the infringement action and Sabert's revocation counterclaim: no direct infringement was found and the claimant failed to establish technical-functional equivalence for the doctrine of equivalents because it did not identify the function or effect of the substituted structural means. The patent was maintained as granted and costs were split between the two proceedings.

Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • No technical-functional equivalence of substitute means in accused 'Tray2Go' product

    RespondentLegal basis: Doctrine of equivalents — technical-functional equivalence test

    Note: Defendant succeeded in defeating equivalence by showing the substituted sidewall element did not fulfil essentially the same function to achieve essentially the same effect as required by the patent's teaching.

  • Late-filed evidence of prior art (commercial brochure backed by physical product) should be excluded for lack of timely justification

    RespondentLegal basis: R. 25.1 RoP; front-loaded approach; Preamble RoP 7

    Note: Court upheld exclusion of untimely prior-art evidence, reinforcing the front-loaded UPC procedural model requiring full cases to be submitted as early as possible.

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

  • Accused 'Tray2Go' product infringes the patent under the doctrine of equivalents via Variant A (gradual transgression of second stiffening portion)

    ClaimantLegal basis: Doctrine of equivalents — technical-functional equivalence test

    Reason: Claimant failed to demonstrate what technical effect the substitute means achieved or that it fulfilled essentially the same function to produce essentially the same effect; argument also raised for the first time in Reply and lacked supporting analysis.

  • Physical product obtained from a commercial brochure can establish the brochure's prior-art disclosure

    RespondentLegal basis: Headnote 2 of decision; Art. 70(1) EPC (authentic text)

    Reason: A commercial brochure is evaluated as a stand-alone publication; obtaining the advertised physical product is not a valid approach to establishing the brochure's disclosure as a piece of prior art.

  • Claims should be construed based on English translation rather than the German-language authentic text

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 70(1) EPC

    Reason: Under Art. 70(1) EPC the language of the patent (German for EP415) is the authentic text; the court construed claims in German even though proceedings were in English.

Key legal principles
Doctrines and rules cited in the reasoning.
Doctrine of equivalents requires technical-functional equivalence: substitute means must fulfil essentially the same function to achieve essentially the same effectFront-loaded UPC procedure requires parties to submit all facts and evidence as early as possible (R. 25.1 RoP; Preamble RoP 7)Timeliness of prior-art evidence: late submission requires reasonable justificationA commercial brochure is evaluated as a stand-alone document; the physical product it advertises is not its disclosureAuthentic text of a European patent is the language of grant (Art. 70(1) EPC) regardless of the language of proceedings

Browse other cases on this principle.

Claim construction notes

The court construed the patent in the German-language authentic text (EP 3 705 415 B1 is in German), interpreting English translations in light of the German original. The key disputed structural feature was the 'wall portion of a side wall that has retaining elements' to which an adhesive-bonding portion is connected — the Tray2Go product uses a different side wall, which the court found neither literally nor equivalently covered.