2025-05-01 - CoA - Insulet v. EOFLOW - UPC_CoA_768/2024
- Aktenzeichen:
- UPC_CoA_768/2024
- Datum:
- Spruchkörper:
- Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU)
- Art:
- Appeal Decision
- Parteien:
- Insulet Corporation v. EOFLOW Co., Ltd.
Kernaussage: 1.
2025-05-01 - CoA - Insulet
v.
EOFLOW - UPC_CoA_768/2024
1. The interpretation of a patent claim is a matter of law. Therefore, the Court cannot leave the judicial task of interpreting the patent claim to an expert but has to construe the claim independently.
2. The skilled person is a notional entity that cannot be equated with any real person in the technical field of the invention. The decisive factor is not the individual knowledge and abilities of a person, but rather the general specialist knowledge that is customary in the relevant field of technology, as well as the average knowledge, experience, and abilities in this specialist field. It is for the Court, not the expert, to assess these circumstances.
3. In general, the risk of the continuation of the infringement arises from a prior infringement, if the infringer does not issue a cease-and-desist declaration with a sufficient penalty clause.
4. If one party is partially unsuccessful, the costs do not always have to be apportioned proportionately. In particular where a party's unsuccessful claim was relatively minor and did not cause further costs, its entire costs may be awarded against the other party.
The Court of Appeal granted the appeal against the rejection of an application for provisional measures and granted a preliminary injunction.
[To be amended]
Stichwörter
Claim construction – expert opinion, Person skilled in the art, Continuation of infringement (Art. 62(1) UPCA), Cost decision if a party succeeds only in part (Art. 69(2) UPCA)
Nichtigkeitsgründe
Art. 138 EPCNovelty
Patent survived (this ground)Art. 54 EPC · Art. 138(1)(a) EPC
“Both novelty attacks failed at the provisional standard. US 2009/0124994 does not disclose feature 4.3, because the snap-in connection means the leadscrew does not extend from the plunger, and it discloses no clutch able to switch states in an assembled device, so features 4.5 and 4.5.1 are absent [71], [73]. WO 2010/055504 discloses no clutch through which the nut passes while disengaged, and in the disconnected state neither the assembled device nor permanent threaded engagement is present [87]–[91].”
Inventive Step
Patent survived (this ground)Art. 56 EPC · Art. 138(1)(a) EPC
“It is not more likely than not that claim 1 is obvious [92]. Neither prior-art document offers a pointer: in US 2009/0124994 the container is inserted pre-filled with the piston already retracted, so there is no need to move the nut through the disengaged clutch [93], [94]; and WO 2010/055504 solves plunger retraction by other mechanisms, with no pointer to a switchable clutch [95].”