1. Key takeaways
The patent claim is not only the starting point, but the decisive basis for determining the protective scope of a European patent
The importance of the patent claims means, inter alia, that a narrowing interpretation of the claims which deviates from the broader general understanding of the terms used therein by the person skilled in the art, can only be permitted in exceptional cases.
According to Art. 65(2) UPCA and Art. 138.1(c) EPC, a European patent may be revoked on the ground that the subject matter of the patent extends beyond the contents of the application as filed or, if the patent was granted on a divisional application or on a new application under Art. 61 EPC, beyond the contents of the earlier application as filed.
In order to determine whether there is added matter, the Court must first determine what the person skilled in the art would deduce directly and unambiguously from the whole of the application as filed, using his common general knowledge and viewed objectively and in relation to the date of filing, whereby implicitly disclosed subject matter, i.e. matter which is a clear and unambiguous consequence of what is expressly mentioned, is also considered to be part of the content of the application as filed. Where the patent is a divisional application, this requirement applies to each earlier application.
Art. 63(1) UPCA explicitly states that the Court "may" issue an injunction, thus it is clear that the Court has a possibility to refrain from issuing an injunction in certain situations.
The Court is expected to consider counterarguments presented by the Defendants, which may include arguments based on proportionality. At the same time, the main function of a patent is to give the proprietor a right to prevent others from using the invention during the term of protection, Art. 25(a) UPCA. The possibility to apply for and be granted a compulsory license, if there is the public interest calling for it, should also be taken into account. Hence, when the Court finds that a patent has been infringed, a request for an injunction should normally be granted.
2. Division
Nordic-Baltic Regional Division
3. UPC number
UPC_CFI_380/2023, ACT_582093/2023; CC_14226/2024
4. Type of proceedings
Infringement proceedings
5. Parties
CLAIMANT:
EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES CORPORATION
DEFENDANTS:
1) MERIL LIFE SCIENCES PVT LIMITED
2) MERIL GMBH
3) SMIS INTERNATIONAL OÜ
4) SORMEDICA, UAB
5) INTERLUX, UAB
6) VAB-LOGISTIK, UAB
6. Patent(s)
EP 3 769 722
7. Jurisdictions
UPC
8. Body of legislation / Rules
Art. 65 UPCA; Art. 138.1(c) EPC; Art. 63 UPCA; Art. 64 UPCA; Art 67 UPCA and R. 191 RoP; Art. 80 UPCA; Art. 68 UPCA, R. 118.5 RoP; Art. 82.1 UPCA
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
