UPC Analytics
ENDE
Overview · Filed: Dec 20, 2024

UPC_CFI_829/2024

METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR PROCESSING SUGAR MIXTURES AND RESULTANT COMPOSITIONS

RevocationMain Revocation ActionMunich CDRevocationCase Closed
OverviewDecisionsReasoningCitationsDocumentsTimeline
Coverage: Partial.Reasoning extracted with partial coverage — some sections may be incomplete.
Plain-English summary

UPM-Kymmene Oyj sought revocation of International N&H Denmark ApS's EP 2 611 800 B1, which claims methods and compositions relating to sugar mixtures. The Munich Central Division revoked the patent in full for Austria, Finland, France, Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden, finding the composition claims lacked inventive step because the claimed intermediate-product composition had no inextricable link to any inventive process, and both the amendment application and subsequent auxiliary request were dismissed.

Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • Claims of EP 2 611 800 covering sugar compositions lack inventive step

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 56 EPC; problem-solution approach; intermediate product doctrine

    Note: Court accepted UPM-Kymmene's challenge that the composition claims were obvious because absent an inextricable link between the claimed composition and an inventive production process, no inventive step can be found for an otherwise non-inventive composition used as an intermediate product.

  • No inextricable link between the claimed intermediate product composition and an inventive process

    ClaimantLegal basis: Headnote 2; intermediate product doctrine

    Note: Court held that where a composition is relied upon merely as an intermediate product, it can only have inventive step if it is inextricably linked to an inventive process for producing a known end-product — that link was absent here.

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

  • Composition claims are novel and inventive as drafted with numerical ranges of ingredients

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 56 EPC; claim interpretation

    Reason: The patentee bears responsibility for drafting precise composition claims; the numerical ranges did not confer novelty or inventive step over the prior art when the claimed composition was not inextricably tied to an inventive process.

  • Application to amend the patent (unconditional and subsequent auxiliary requests)

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 65(3) UPCA; R. 30 RoP

    Reason: Both the unconditional amendment application and the subsequent auxiliary request were dismissed; the decision gives no detailed subsidiary reasoning visible in the excerpt.

Key legal principles
Doctrines and rules cited in the reasoning.
Patentee bears responsibility for drafting precise composition claims, particularly numerical rangesIntermediate product doctrine: a composition used as an intermediate lacks inventive step absent an inextricable link to an inventive production processProduct-by-process features: claim interpretation for composition claims containing process-derived markersSubsequent auxiliary amendment requests may be refused permission

Browse other cases on this principle.

Claim construction notes

The court addressed the interpretation of composition claims containing numerical ranges and marker molecules, including product-by-process features. The skilled person was held to expect precision and diligence from the patentee in specifying all components of a claimed composition.