UPClytics
English
Sign inSign up
Overview · Filed: Sep 4, 2023

UPC_CFI_292/2023

METHOD FOR COMMUNICATING SPATIALLY LOCATED INFORMATION TO A MOBILE TERMINAL

Provisional measuresProvisional MeasuresMunich LDProvisional measuresCase Closed
OverviewDecisionsReasoningCitationsDocumentsTimeline
Coverage: Partial.Reasoning extracted with partial coverage — some sections may be incomplete.
Plain-English summary

SES-imagotag applied for provisional measures before the Munich Local Division against Hanshow Technology and related entities concerning EP 3 883 277 (electronic shelf label communication technology). The court dismissed the application after finding that infringement was not established with sufficient certainty, applying claim construction that used the original pre-amendment claim language as an interpretive aid. SES-imagotag was ordered to pay all costs including those incurred by Hanshow in filing its protective letter.

Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • Infringement of EP 3 883 277 by Hanshow's electronic shelf label products not established with sufficient certainty

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 62 UPCA; R.211 RoP (provisional measures standard)

    Note: The court was not sufficiently convinced of infringement after examining claim interpretation and the accused products; the PI application was therefore dismissed.

  • Original claim version of a European patent may be used as a claim construction aid in connection with amendments made during prosecution

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 69 EPC and Protocol on Interpretation

    Note: This headnote principle was applied to interpret the scope of the granted claims by reference to earlier claim language, narrowing the scope relative to the applicant's preferred reading.

  • Costs of a protective letter filed under R.207.8 RoP are recoverable by a successful respondent as 'other costs of the proceedings'

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 69(1) UPCA; R.207.8 RoP

    Note: The protective letter becomes part of the provisional measures proceedings upon referral; its costs are normally to be borne by an unsuccessful applicant.

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

  • Infringement of EP 3 883 277 sufficiently established to justify provisional measures including injunction

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 62 UPCA; Art. 69 EPC

    Reason: The court was not sufficiently certain of infringement after claim construction and analysis of the accused products; infringement was not established with the requisite degree of certainty for provisional measures.

Key legal principles
Doctrines and rules cited in the reasoning.
Original claim version of a European patent may be used as a claim construction aid when claims were amended during prosecution (purposive/contextual claim construction)Costs of a protective letter filed under R.207.8 RoP form part of the provisional measures proceedings costs, recoverable by the successful respondentUnsuccessful applicant for provisional measures normally bears all costs including protective letter costs; no reason to depart absent special circumstancesProvisional measures standard: infringement must be established with sufficient certainty

Browse other cases on this principle.

Claim construction notes

The Munich Local Division used the prosecution history (original claim version before amendment) as an interpretive tool under Art. 69 EPC to determine the scope of EP 3 883 277's claims directed at a method for communicating spatially located information to a mobile terminal. This resulted in a narrower scope that the accused Hanshow electronic shelf label products did not meet with sufficient certainty.