UPClytics
ENDE
Sign inStart trial
View all cases

UPC CFI 403/2025

May 12, 2025·EP3295663 · DIGITALLY OVERLAYING AN IMAGE WITH ANOTHER IMAGE

Follow
Case details
Status
Case Closed (Patent upheld as granted)
Action
Counterclaim for revocation
Category
Counterclaim for revocation
Parties
Claimants
Representatives
Respondents
Representatives
Division
Helsinki LD
Judges
Technology
  • Electrical engineering
    Audio-visual technology
Language
English
First decided
Apr 29, 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.
Patent revokedMedian days to first decision
All UPC37% (34/91)124
Helsinki LD—Locked
Judge Petri RinkinenLockedLocked
Judge Mélanie BessaudLockedLocked
Judge Samuel GranataLockedLocked
Judge Eric AugardeLockedLocked

At the UPC: Supponor Group (14 cases)·AIM SPORT VISION AG (1 case)

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

This dispute contains 11 other proceedings

UPC CoA 104/2026·UPC CoA 107/2026·UPC APP 1211/2025·UPC APP 65722/2024·UPC CoA 489/2023 and 6 more

1 other defendants litigating the same or a related patent

UPC CoA 108/2026

Start a free trial to see how each one ended.

More cases: Helsinki LD·2025

Decisions
  • 2026-04-29
    Counterclaim for revocationPublic

    Summary: The Helsinki Local Division found EP 3 295 663 valid (rejecting TGI's counterclaim for revocation on grounds of added matter, novelty, and inventive step), but dismissed the infringement action because TGI's SVB System does not reproduce feature 12.5 of claim 12 either literally or by equivalent means. Specifically, the SVB System detects pixels of the billboard based on an artificially created infrared signature of the billboard, not based on an intrinsic image property of occluding objects. All requests relating to the AIR System were also rejected.

    Show the legal issues (9)
    • Claim construction of feature 12.5 (detection of occluding objects based on image property)
    • Literal infringement of claim 12 by SVB System
    • Infringement by equivalent means under Art. 2 Protocol on Interpretation of Art. 69 EPC
    • Added matter under Art. 123(2) / Art. 138(1)(c) EPC
    • Novelty over prior art (Rantalainen WO 2013/132032 A1, Nevatie WO 2013/186278 A1)
    • Inventive step over Rantalainen, Nevatie, Gupta
    • Prior use rights (not adjudicated as no infringement found)
    • Injunction over AIR System based on use of data from allegedly infringing SVB System
    • Cost allocation where patent valid but not infringed
Documents
Show all 163 documents
Document titleDatePublic
Case closed2026-09-28Not public
Receipt2026-07-06Not public
Cover sheet2026-07-06Not public
Application document Defendant2026-07-06Not public
Communication2026-07-03Not public
Communication2026-05-30Not public
Receipt2026-05-29Not public
Cover sheet2026-05-29Not public
Application document Applicant2026-05-29Not public
Decision2026-04-29Not public
Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • The SVB System does not reproduce feature 12.5 of claim 12 because it detects pixels of the billboard based on an artificially created infrared signature of the billboard (threshold values T1, T2, T3, T4 which are characteristics of the billboard), not based on an intrinsic image property of the occluding object.

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 25(b) UPCA; claim construction of feature 12.5

  • There is no technical equivalence because the SVB System does not detect occluding objects based on an intrinsic image property; it relies on a billboard-signature-based detection approach, which is a logical development of prior art (Rantalainen, Nevatie), not the new paradigm of the Patent.

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 2 Protocol on Interpretation of Art. 69 EPC; equivalence criteria from UPC_CFI_239/2023

  • The Patent is valid: no added matter (TGI's allegations were insufficiently substantiated beyond claim 5, and the combination of features was implicitly disclosed in the original application).

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 138(1)(c) EPC; Art. 123(2) EPC

  • The Patent is novel over Rantalainen because Rantalainen does not disclose feature 12.1.1.2 (display device configured to display a moving image) — Rantalainen's billboard uses IR-backlit static printed sheets, not a moving image display.

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 54(1) EPC

  • The Patent is novel over Nevatie because Nevatie does not disclose features 12.1.1.2, 12.3.1, and 12.5.

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 54(1) EPC

  • The Patent is inventive over combinations of Rantalainen, Nevatie, and Gupta because none of those documents individually or in combination suggest detecting occluding objects based on an intrinsic image property of the occluding object.

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 56 EPC
Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.

  • The SVB System's Secondary Key Value (MK2) in dual channel mode detects occluding objects based on their image properties (IR2 brightness as image property of occluding object), establishing literal infringement of feature 12.5.

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 25(b) UPCA; feature 12.5 of claim 12

  • The SVB System operating in dual channel mode infringes claim 12 by equivalent means because it ultimately achieves the same overall effect (non-occluded sections of billboard are overlaid).

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 2 Protocol on Interpretation of Art. 69 EPC

  • The AIR System's use should be enjoined because it was trained on data obtained by infringing use of the SVB System.

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 63(1) UPCA