2025-04-30 - CD Paris - Kinexon Sports Media v. Ballinno - UPC_CFI_230/2024
- Aktenzeichen:
- UPC_CFI_230/2024
- Datum:
- Spruchkörper:
- Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat
- Art:
- Proceeding Decision
- Parteien:
- Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH v. Ballinno B.V.
Kernaussage: 1.
2025-04-30 - CD Paris - Kinexon Sports Media
v.
Ballinno - UPC_CFI_230/2024
1. A broad, general term used in the main claim is not to be limited to an understanding derived from the more specific or narrower features disclosed in a dependant claim or in the description. Instead, the dependant claim and/or the description merely indicate possible embodiments of the patented invention which may provide for additional advantages.
2. Embodiments generally serve to describe options for realizing the invention and therefore do not permit a restrictive interpretation of a more general patent claim. Embodiments mentioned in the patent description only permit the conclusion that they fall under the claim; they do not restrict the scope of the patent claim.
The Paris Central Division revoked a patent in its entirety based on a lack of inventive step, rejecting all auxiliary requests and the application to amend the patent.
Stichwörter
Revocation, claim interpretation, non-limiting embodiments, inventive
step, starting point, obviousness, extension of scope
Nichtigkeitsgründe
Art. 138 EPCNovelty
Patent invalid (this ground)Art. 54 EPC · Art. 138(1)(a) EPC
“Main request claims 1/8 not novel over D2 (Roke). Claims not limited to football, so cricket impact detection relevant.”
Inventive Step
Patent invalid (this ground)Art. 56 EPC · Art. 138(1)(a) EPC
“All claims and auxiliary requests non-inventive over D3 (Penezy) + D2 (Roke). Skilled person would combine for improved detection.”
Added Matter
Patent invalid (this ground)Art. 123(2) EPC · Art. 138(1)(c) EPC
“AR2 invalid under Art. 123(2) EPC. Acceleration signal location unrestricted in claims but required inside ball in original disclosure.”