UPClytics
ENDE
Sign inStart trial
View all cases

UPC CFI 480/2025

May 29, 2025·EP4185356 Unitary patent · NASAL CANNULA

Follow
Case details
Status
Case Closed (Patent revoked)
Action
Revocation
Category
Main revocation action
Parties
Respondents
Representatives
Division
Milan CD
Judges
Technology
  • Instruments
    Medical technology
Language
English
First decided
Jan 15, 2026
Last decision
Apr 10, 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
Milan CDLockedLocked
Judge Andrea PostiglioneLockedLocked
Judge Anna-Lena KleinLockedLocked
Judge Kerstin RoselingerLockedLocked

At the UPC: Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Limited (2 cases)·Flexicare (Group) Limited (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 1472/2026

Start a free trial to see how each one ended.

More cases: Milan CD·2025

Decisions
  • 2026-04-10
    Public

    Summary: The Central Division Milan revoked European Patent EP 4 185 356 in its entirety with effect on all UPC Contracting Member States, finding that claim 1 as granted and auxiliary request 1 lack novelty over prior art document D2 (WO 2015/193833 A2). Auxiliary requests 2 to 13 were found not allowable due to lack of clarity under Art. 84 EPC, and the application to amend the patent was dismissed.

    Show the legal issues (6)
    • Novelty (Art. 54 EPC) — claim 1 and AR1 lack novelty over prior art D2 (WO 2015/193833 A2)
    • Claim interpretation — meaning of 'manifold', 'connector', 'swivel connection', 'selective retainer means'
    • Admissibility and allowability of auxiliary requests
    • Clarity (Art. 84 EPC) — AR2-AR13 lack clarity regarding whether gas tube is a mandatory component
    • Added matter (Art. 123(2) EPC) — raised but left open as clarity/novelty dispositive
    • Mapping of prior art components to claim features when different labels are used in prior art
  • 2026-01-15
    Revocation ActionPublic

    Summary: The Milan Central Division (full panel: Postiglione, Klein, Roselinger) rejected Fisher & Paykel's request to introduce auxiliary requests 2A to 13A as subsequent amendments to the patent (EP 4 185 356) in the revocation proceedings. The Court held that under R. 50.2 and R. 30.2 RoP, subsequent amendments are only allowed on an exceptional basis; the preclusive nature of the front-loaded system means that amendments must be made in full at the earliest stage. The efficiency of proceedings is not a sufficient reason to allow subsequent piecemeal amendments.

    Show the legal issues (3)
    • Subsequent amendments to patent (R. 50.2, R. 30.2 RoP)
    • Front-loaded system and preclusive nature of pleadings
    • Admissibility of auxiliary requests
Documents
Show all 204 documents
Document titleDatePublic
Other Documents2026-06-11Not public
Receipt2026-04-30Not public
Cover sheet2026-04-30Not public
Application document Applicant2026-04-30Not public
Case closed2026-04-10Not public
Decision2026-04-10Not public
Decision2026-04-10Public
Communication2026-04-09Not public
Hearing recording reference document2026-02-27Not public
Receipt2026-02-24Not public
Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • Frame portion 102 in D2 constitutes a 'manifold' in the sense of claim 1, and component 114 (labelled 'manifold' in D2) constitutes a 'connector', such that all features of claim 1 as granted are directly and unambiguously disclosed by D2

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 54 EPC; novelty assessment based on overall disclosure of prior art document

  • AR2-AR13 lack clarity because the newly added feature referring to 'the aperture fluidically connects the gas tube to the manifold' leaves the skilled person in doubt whether the gas tube is a mandatory component of the nasal cannula

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 84 EPC; Rule 50.2 RoP

  • Swivel connection is not limited to single-axis rotation; both single-axis and multi-axis rotational arrangements fall within claim 1

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

  • Gas tube is not a mandatory component of the nasal cannula as claimed in claim 1 as granted

    ClaimantLegal basis: Claim interpretation under Art. 69 EPC
Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.

  • Component 114 (labelled 'manifold' in D2) must be mapped to the 'manifold' of claim 1, and the frame portion 102 cannot constitute the manifold because it does not direct gas from the inlet at the connector-manifold connection to the nasal prong outlets

    RespondentLegal basis: Claim interpretation under Art. 69 EPC

  • 'Swivel connection' in claim 1 is limited to rotation about a single axis of rotation

    RespondentLegal basis: Claim interpretation under Art. 69 EPC

  • The nasal cannula requires that the gas supply tube not be disconnected during use (continuous airflow requirement)

    RespondentLegal basis: Claim interpretation under Art. 69 EPC

  • AR1 is not novel over D2 only if component 114 is mapped as the 'manifold'; under the defendant's preferred mapping AR1 is novel

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 54 EPC

  • AR1 was inadequately substantiated and therefore inadmissible

    ClaimantLegal basis: Rule 50.2 RoP