UPC_CFI_248/2024

Patent EP 2 387 547 B1 as amended (auxiliary request) is valid and infringed by AQUASHIELD replacement filter cartridges

Note: Court maintained the patent in amended form and found infringement, granting an injunction effective from 23 May 2019.

Purpose indications in a device claim require only that the device be suitable for the stated purpose; actual use for that purpose is not required

Note: Court held that purpose indications define a device by its suitability; for novelty, only whether the prior art device is inherently suitable or requires modification is relevant.

Replacement of an entire cartridge (key functional component) by a third-party constitutes re-manufacture, not exhaustion-protected repair

Note: Court distinguished exhaustion-protected repair from re-manufacture: replacement that does not preserve the identity of the specific patented product constitutes re-manufacture and falls outside exhaustion.

Exhaustion: defendants' filter cartridges are legitimately supplied replacement parts for products placed on market by Brita

Reason: Exhaustion covers permitted use including normal maintenance and restoration, but not acts amounting to re-manufacture of the patented product. Replacing a key functional component that embodies the patented invention goes beyond permitted repair and constitutes re-manufacture.

Patent claims as originally granted are valid (revocation counterclaim)

Reason: Patent was maintained in amended form via auxiliary requests; original claims were partially found invalid but the revocation counterclaim succeeded only to the extent the patent required amendment.

Where patentee defends only via auxiliary requests (amended claims), court must first consider whether original claims are partially invalid under Art. 65(3) UPCA

Reason: Court held that where the patentee defends only via auxiliary requests and not the original claims, there is no obligation under Art. 76(1) UPCA to examine partial invalidity of the original claims.