UPClytics
English
Sign inSign up
Overview · Filed: Oct 24, 2024

UPC_CFI_612/2024

GUTTER, GUTTER ASSEMBLY AND ASSEMBLY METHOD

InfringementMain Infringement ActionParis LDInfringementOral Phase
OverviewDecisionsReasoningCitationsDocumentsTimeline
Plain-English summary

Raccords et Plastiques Nicoll (RPN) brought an infringement action at the Paris Local Division against First Plast and related entities alleging that the 'Ghost' invisible gutter grating infringes EP 3 272 938 (invisible drainage channel grating) both literally and by equivalence. The court dismissed the action, finding no literal infringement of claim 1 and rejecting the equivalence argument because the alleged equivalent function (improved fluid dynamics through longitudinal alignment) was neither claimed nor described in the patent and RPN failed to show the skilled person would derive it unambiguously.

Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • The 'Ghost' grating product does not literally reproduce the claim 1 feature requiring longitudinal alignment of spacer elements and drainage openings

    Respondent

    Note: Court found the Ghost product's structural configuration differs from the claim requirement and no literal infringement was established.

  • Doctrine of equivalents cannot apply where the alleged equivalent function (improved fluid dynamics) is not disclosed or derivable from the patent by the skilled person

    RespondentLegal basis: UPC_CoA_523/2024 (3 March 2025)

    Note: Court held RPN failed to show it was more likely than not that the skilled person could derive the fluidic improvement function unambiguously from the patent; respondent's expert testimony on fluid physics was more convincing.

  • Patent proprietor bears burden to show alleged equivalent function is derivable by skilled person from the patent

    RespondentLegal basis: UPC_CoA_523/2024

    Note: The court confirmed the plausibility/more-likely-than-not standard for equivalence, placing the burden on the claimant.

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

  • The Ghost product infringes claim 1 by equivalence because longitudinal alignment of spacers and openings serves the same function of improving water flow

    ClaimantLegal basis: UPC_CoA_523/2024

    Reason: The function of improving fluid behaviour of water is neither claimed nor described in the patent; RPN failed to demonstrate it was more likely than not that the skilled person could deduce this function unambiguously from the patent.

  • Diagrams presented by claimant showed improved water trajectory justifying equivalence finding

    Claimant

    Reason: Respondent's European patent attorney testified at hearing that claimant's diagrams were unrealistic given physical factors (friction, gravity), and the court found this more convincing.

Key legal principles
Doctrines and rules cited in the reasoning.
Doctrine of equivalents requires that the equivalent function be derivable from the patent by the skilled personPlausibility standard for equivalence: alleged equivalent function must be more likely than not derivable without ambiguityPatentee cannot rely on functions neither claimed nor described in the patent to establish equivalencePurposive claim construction does not allow extending protection beyond what the patent discloses as the technical effect

Browse other cases on this principle.

Claim construction notes

The court interpreted claim 1 of EP3272938 (invisible drainage channel grating) as requiring longitudinal alignment of spacer elements separated from drainage openings. The court rejected RPN's broader reading that would encompass alignment configurations serving improved water-flow functions not described in the patent.