UPClytics
ENDE
Sign inStart trial
View all cases

UPC CFI 292/2023

Sep 4, 2023·EP3883277 Unitary patent · METHOD FOR COMMUNICATING SPATIALLY LOCATED INFORMATION TO A MOBILE TERMINAL

Follow
Case details
Status
Case Closed
Action
Provisional measures
Category
Provisional measures
Parties
Claimants
Representatives
Respondents
Representatives
Division
Munich LD
Judges
Technology
  • Electrical engineering
    Audio-visual technology · Digital communication · Computer technology · IT methods for management
  • Instruments
    Measurement
Language
German
First decided
Dec 20, 2023
Last decision
Oct 11, 2024
EPO Opposition
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.
Preliminary injunction grantedMedian days to first decision
All UPC54% (38/70)124
Munich LDLockedLocked
Judge Matthias ZigannLockedLocked
Judge Tobias PichlmaierLockedLocked
Judge Margot KokkeLockedLocked
Judge Uwe SchwengelbeckLockedLocked

At the UPC: SES-imagotag SA (9 cases)·Hanshow Technology Co. Ltd (6 cases)

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

This dispute contains 6 other proceedings

UPC CoA 285/2025·UPC CFI 84/2025·UPC CoA 618/2024·UPC APP 3393/2024·UPC CoA 1/2024 and 1 more

Start a free trial to see how each one ended.

More cases: Munich LD·2023

Decisions
  • 2023-12-20
    Application for provisional measuresPublic

    Summary: The Munich Local Division dismissed SES-imagotag's application for provisional measures against Hanshow Technology and related entities concerning electronic shelf label technology, finding that infringement of EP3883277 had not been established with sufficient certainty. The court also ordered SES-imagotag to bear the costs including those of the protective letter filed by the respondents.

    Show the legal issues (3)
    • Provisional measures: infringement not established with sufficient certainty
    • Claim interpretation using earlier claim versions as an aid
    • Costs of protective letter as recoverable costs for successful respondent
Documents
Show all 260 documents
Document titleDatePublic
Outcome of the Order2025-07-17Not public
Abschluss Kostenfestsetzungsverfahren2025-07-17Public
Outcome of the Order2025-07-17Not public
Schlussbehandlung Wiedereinsetzungantrag2025-07-17Public
Outcome of the Order2025-07-17Not public
Schlussbehandlung Wiedereinsetzungantrag2025-07-17Public
Outcome of the Order2025-07-17Not public
Schlussbehandlung Wiedereinsetzungantrag2025-07-17Public
Receipt2025-07-14Not public
Zustimmung zum Antrag auf Rücknahme (Regel 265) der Gegenseite2025-07-10Not public
Coverage: Partial.Reasoning extracted with partial coverage — some sections may be incomplete.
Plain-English summary

SES-imagotag applied for provisional measures before the Munich Local Division against Hanshow Technology and related entities concerning EP 3 883 277 (electronic shelf label communication technology). The court dismissed the application after finding that infringement was not established with sufficient certainty, applying claim construction that used the original pre-amendment claim language as an interpretive aid. SES-imagotag was ordered to pay all costs including those incurred by Hanshow in filing its protective letter.

Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • Infringement of EP 3 883 277 by Hanshow's electronic shelf label products not established with sufficient certainty

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 62 UPCA; R.211 RoP (provisional measures standard)

    Note: The court was not sufficiently convinced of infringement after examining claim interpretation and the accused products; the PI application was therefore dismissed.

  • Original claim version of a European patent may be used as a claim construction aid in connection with amendments made during prosecution

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 69 EPC and Protocol on Interpretation

    Note: This headnote principle was applied to interpret the scope of the granted claims by reference to earlier claim language, narrowing the scope relative to the applicant's preferred reading.

  • Costs of a protective letter filed under R.207.8 RoP are recoverable by a successful respondent as 'other costs of the proceedings'

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 69(1) UPCA; R.207.8 RoP

    Note: The protective letter becomes part of the provisional measures proceedings upon referral; its costs are normally to be borne by an unsuccessful applicant.

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

  • Infringement of EP 3 883 277 sufficiently established to justify provisional measures including injunction

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 62 UPCA; Art. 69 EPC

    Reason: The court was not sufficiently certain of infringement after claim construction and analysis of the accused products; infringement was not established with the requisite degree of certainty for provisional measures.

Key legal principles
Doctrines and rules cited in the reasoning.
Original claim version of a European patent may be used as a claim construction aid when claims were amended during prosecution (purposive/contextual claim construction)Costs of a protective letter filed under R.207.8 RoP form part of the provisional measures proceedings costs, recoverable by the successful respondentUnsuccessful applicant for provisional measures normally bears all costs including protective letter costs; no reason to depart absent special circumstancesProvisional measures standard: infringement must be established with sufficient certainty

Browse other cases on this principle.

Claim construction notes

The Munich Local Division used the prosecution history (original claim version before amendment) as an interpretive tool under Art. 69 EPC to determine the scope of EP 3 883 277's claims directed at a method for communicating spatially located information to a mobile terminal. This resulted in a narrower scope that the accused Hanshow electronic shelf label products did not meet with sufficient certainty.