Case Law
Article 69: Extent of protection
Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division, Order dated 13/09/2024, Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Belkin GmbH, Belkin Limited, Belkin International, Inc., (Case/ Registry number: ACT_583273/2023, ORD_598464/2023)
Example of decision on the interpretation of claims with regard to the description and drawings: "In the interpretation of the patent claim, which is to be carried out from the point of view of the person skilled in the art, the claim is not only the starting point but also the decisive basis for determining the scope of protection of a European patent. The interpretation of a claim is not limited to its literal wording in the linguistic sense; rather, the description and drawings must always be consulted as aids to interpretation of the claim, and not only to remedy any lack of clarity in the claim. However, this does not mean that the claim serves only as a guideline and that its subject-matter also extends to what is presented as the patent proprietor’s request for protection after examination of the description and drawings (UPC_CoA_335/2023). As stated in the Protocol on Article 69 EPC, a balance must be struck between appropriate legal certainty for third parties and appropriate protection for the patent proprietor when interpreting a claim. The person skilled in the art reads the claim in a way that makes technical sense and taking into account the entire disclosure of the patent. Claims are read with a mind willing to understand them in context (see, for example, EPO, decision of 6 March 2001, T 190/99). The same applies to the description and the drawings, whereby their purpose must be taken into account, namely to describe or illustrate the basic concept of a claimed invention by means of detailed examples. However, the subject-matter sought to be protected as determined from the description and the drawings can only be the subject-matter of the patent claim if it has also been expressed in the claim."
Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division, Order dated 09/04/2024, Mammut Sports Group GmbH, Mammut Sports Group AG / Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH (Registry number App_4074/2024 ORD_13918/2024)
Example of decision on the use of description and drawings to interpret the claims: “Art. 24 para. 1 (c) UPCA in conjunction with Art. 69 EPC conclusively determine which documents are to be used. Art. 69 EPC conclusively determine which documents are to be used for the interpretation of the patent claims determining the scope of protection, namely the patent description and the patent drawings. Since the grant file is not mentioned in Art. 69 EPC, it does not in principle constitute admissible material for interpretation (see also Kühnen, Handbuch der Patentverletzung, 16th ed., section A, para. 114; Benkard/Scharen, EPC, Art. 69 para. 32 with further references). If the applicant has commented on the meaning of a feature or term during the examination procedure, this may at most have indicative significance as to how the skilled person understands the feature in question. Whether, on the other hand, at least publicly accessible documents, such as the disclosure document, can be used to interpret the patent claim of the applicable version of the claim (apparently: UPC_CFI_292/2023 (LK Mün- chen), order of 20 December 2023, GRUR-RR 2024, 93 - Elektronisches Etikett; against this: Kühnen loc. cit., para. 118), is not relevant for the present case and therefore does not need to be decided.
In principle, an applicant does not have to take any risks when pursuing legal action in the context of proceedings for an order for provisional measures. He only needs to call upon the court if he has reliable knowledge of all the facts that make legal action in the proceedings for an order for provisional measures promising and if he can credibly demonstrate these facts.”
Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division, Order dated 20/12/2023, SES-imagotag SA vs. Hanshow Technology Co. Ltd. Et al., (Case number UPC_CFI_292/2023 ORD_596193/2023)
Example of decision on the patent interpretation in the context of an application for provisional measures: “1. The original version of the claims of a European patent may be used as an aid to interpretation in the event of amendments being made to the version of the claims during the grant procedure.
2. As the losing party, the claimant of an unsuccessful request for provisional measures must normally bear the costs incurred by the defendant in defendant to file a statement of defense.”