2024-09-13 - LD Munich - Philips v. Belkin et al. - UPC_CFI_390/2023
- Aktenzeichen:
- UPC_CFI_390/2023
- Datum:
- Spruchkörper:
- Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division
- Art:
- Proceeding Decision
- Parteien:
- Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Belkin GmbH, Belkin Limited, Belkin International, Inc.,
Kernaussage: 1.
2024-09-13 - LD Munich - Philips
v.
Belkin et al. - UPC_CFI_390/2023
1. The subject-matter of the invention as derived from the description and drawings is protected only if it is so expressed in the language of the claims.
2. If several embodiments are presented in the description as being in accordance with the claimed invention, the terms used in the patent claim shall, in case of doubt, be understood in such a way that all embodiments fall under the claim construction.
3. A patent infringer under the UPCA is a person who acts as a manufacturer or supplier, or who appears to the relevant trade to be such a person, and who manufactures and/or sells the goods in his own name and for his own account.
4. If a company infringes a patent, the issuance of an order pursuant to Art. 63(1), 2nd sentence, UPCA (order against intermediaries) may be considered with regard to the organs that company.
The Court decided that the patent was valid and infringed and issued and injunction. The decision deals with questions of claim construction and the person of the infringer within a company.
Stichwörter
Res judicata effects of foreign decisions, Right to be sued, Intermediary, Claim construction
Nichtigkeitsgründe
Art. 138 EPCNovelty
Patent survived (this ground)Art. 54 EPC · Art. 138(1)(a) EPC
“The novelty attacks all failed. D1 does not disclose communication based on modulation of the power signal, so feature 20.1.1 is missing, and relying on D2 and D6 to fill it is an impermissible combination rather than proof of common general knowledge. D2 has no separate request phase preceding the negotiation phase. D3 contains no confirmation of the request. D6's exchange of enumeration information is neither a request to enter a negotiation phase nor an acknowledgement of one [B.III.3.a-d].”
Inventive Step
Patent survived (this ground)Art. 56 EPC · Art. 138(1)(a) EPC
“The inventive-step attack starting from D4, the Qi standard in version 1.0, failed. A skilled person faced with the problem of implementing the receiver's wish to renegotiate the power transfer contract would not provide the corresponding acknowledgement messages, and neither D4 nor D2, D5 or D6 lays out the patented system for entering and conducting a negotiation phase [B.III.4].”
Added Matter
Patent survived (this ground)Art. 123(2) EPC · Art. 138(1)(c) EPC
“The added-matter attack on the words 'being indicative' in features 19.6.1 and 20.6.1 failed. The application as filed already said that the acknowledgement need not be a separate message and may be a simple one-bit acknowledgement or part of a message containing other information, so the skilled person derived from it that the acknowledgement may also be implied by a message with a different primary content [B.III.1].”
Insufficiency of Disclosure
Patent survived (this ground)Art. 83 EPC · Art. 138(1)(b) EPC
“The invention is disclosed clearly and completely enough. On the understanding that the independent claims protect only transmitters able to enter a negotiation phase and expressly to accept or reject the request, the skilled person can reproduce the claimed methods and devices without becoming inventive [B.III.2].”
Inoffiziell
Inoffizielle KI-Übersetzung
Dies ist eine automatische, von KI erstellte Übersetzung, die Fehler enthalten kann. Rechtsverbindlich ist allein das Originaldokument in der Verfahrenssprache (German).