UPC CFI 363/2024

The scope of protection of EP 2 404 516 is limited to edge-to-edge placement of ribbon strips as expressly defined in claim 1; the overlapping/superposition embodiment in the description does not fall within the patent's scope of protection

Note: Court held that the claims expressly limit the scope to 'bord à bord' (edge-to-edge) placement and cited Hamburg LD (Agfa v Gucci, UPC_CFI_278/2023) that description specifications inconsistent with granted claims cannot serve as basis for broader interpretation.

Infringement by equivalence (doctrine of equivalents) claim submitted after the statement of defence is admissible as it constitutes adaptation of the claimant's case in response to defence arguments and did not change the nature of the procedural strategy

Note: Court held the equivalence claim was not tardy (filed at reply stage, not initially) because it was a justified response to defence arguments and defendant had the opportunity to reply in its rejoinder.

Direct infringement of EP 2 404 516 (wig/hairpiece patent — edge-to-edge ribbon design) by Gisela Mayer

Reason: Patent scope is limited to edge-to-edge placement as defined in the claims; Gisela Mayer's products did not fall within this scope.

Infringement by equivalence of EP 2 404 516

Reason: Equivalence claim failed on the merits; the court applied the 'same function, same effect' test (smallest common denominator among UPC member state approaches) and found the modified means in Gisela Mayer's product did not essentially perform the same function to achieve essentially the same effect.

Personal condemnation of the judicial administrator and mandataire judiciaire (insolvency practitioners) for costs

Reason: Under French insolvency law (lex concursus), liability of insolvency officers requires a characterised autonomous fault; Gisela Mayer merely showed they chose to continue the litigation, which does not demonstrate such fault.