UPClytics
English
Sign inSign up
Overview · Filed: Sep 30, 2024

UPC_CFI_497/2024

MODULAR POINT-OF-CARE DEVICES AND USES THEREOF

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

bioMérieux UK Limited and related entities brought a revocation action at the Milan Central Division against Labrador Diagnostics LLC's EP 3 756 767 B1 (modular point-of-care diagnostic test device). The court rejected all invalidity attacks including novelty, inventive step, added subject-matter and sufficiency against the claims as amended by Auxiliary Request 3, maintaining the patent in that amended form. bioMérieux was ordered to pay EUR 400,000 in legal costs (two-thirds of the EUR 600,000 ceiling), with the court declining Labrador's request to keep the agreed cost amount confidential.

Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • The most promising invalidity attacks should be identified and unmanageable numbers of attacks may be limited by the court

    RespondentLegal basis: UPC RoP preamble (proportionality, speed)

    Note: Court held that when a party submits an unmanageable number of attacks, those not identified as most promising need not be assessed if the promising ones fail.

  • Patent EP 3 756 767 B1 is valid and maintained as amended by Auxiliary Request 3

    Respondent

    Note: All attacks based on novelty, inventive step and sufficiency against AR3 failed; the patent was maintained in amended form.

  • Amount of agreed legal costs need not be kept confidential as it does not reveal company financial strategy or patent asset value

    Claimant

    Note: Court declined to keep the EUR 400,000 cost figure confidential, ruling it did not inherently disclose commercially sensitive information.

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

  • EP 3 756 767 B1 (diagnostic test patent) is invalid for added subject-matter, lack of novelty, lack of inventive step, and insufficiency

    Claimant

    Reason: All the most promising attacks were assessed and none affected validity of the claims under AR3; remaining attacks were presumed unable to succeed.

  • Agreed amount of legal costs should be ordered confidential

    Respondent

    Reason: The agreed amount of legal costs does not in itself reveal company financial capacity, commercial strategy or importance of the patent as a corporate asset.

Key legal principles
Doctrines and rules cited in the reasoning.
Court may limit assessment to most promising invalidity attacks where an unmanageable number is submitted, applying proportionality and speed principlesPatent maintained as amended under auxiliary request where main request is invalidAgreed amounts of legal costs are not inherently confidential under UPC proceedingsCosts apportioned where both parties have partial success and failure

Browse other cases on this principle.