UPClytics
English
Sign inSign up
Overview · Filed: Apr 15, 2024

UPC_CFI_178/2024

METHOD AND DEVICE FOR CONTINUOUSLY PRODUCING A MESH-TYPE SUPPORT

InfringementMain Infringement ActionMilan LDInfringementCase Closed
OverviewDecisionsReasoningCitationsDocumentsTimeline
Coverage: Partial.Reasoning extracted with partial coverage — some sections may be incomplete.
Plain-English summary

Progress Maschinen & Automation AG sued AWM s.r.l. and Schnell s.p.a. for infringement of EP 2 726 230 B1, a patent for a method and device for continuously producing a mesh-type support for construction reinforcement. The Milan Local Division found the patent invalid for lack of novelty (the claimed invention being directly and unambiguously disclosed in prior art including prior use), dismissed the application to amend the patent, and consequently dismissed the infringement action; costs were borne by Progress as the unsuccessful claimant.

Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • EP 2 726 230 B1 lacks novelty over prior art made available to the public by use

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 54 EPC

    Note: The Milan Local Division revoked the patent in its entirety on novelty grounds, applying the principle that an invention is part of the state of the art when disclosed integrally, directly, and unambiguously in a single piece of prior art including prior use.

  • Technical problem for inventive step cannot use effects requiring additional information not available to the skilled person from the patent application

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 56 EPC

    Note: Court articulated this as a headnote principle in assessing the obviousness of the mesh-production method claims.

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

  • Application to amend the patent (auxiliary requests) should be admitted

    ClaimantLegal basis: R. 30.2 RoP

    Reason: The application to amend the patent was dismissed; the court applied the requirements of R. 30.2 RoP for admissibility of amendment requests and found them not met.

  • Infringement action for EP 2 726 230 B1

    Claimant

    Reason: Dismissed as a consequence of the patent being revoked in its entirety.

Key legal principles
Doctrines and rules cited in the reasoning.
Novelty: an invention is part of the state of the art when disclosed completely and unambiguously in a single prior art document or prior useInventive step: objective technical problem must be derived from effects causally related to claimed technical features; effects requiring additional information not in the application cannot define the problemAmendment during proceedings subject to admissibility requirements (R. 30.2 RoP)Revocation defeats infringement action

Browse other cases on this principle.

Prior art relied on
References cited and the role they played.
  • Prior use (Girderflex machine) at EUR 2,000,000 price pointNovelty-destroying