2025-06-06 - LD Mannheim - DISH et al. v. Aylo Premium - UPC_CFI_471/2023

1. According to all doctrines of equivalence or equivalence tests of the UPC contracting member states an equivalent patent infringement is ruled out if there is no technical-functional equivalence of the means in the sense that the modified means do not essentially fulfill the same essentially the same function in order to achieve essentially the same effect. Insofar as the the same function, at least essentially the same effect is assumed. 2. The isolated elimination of dependent subclaims by means of an action for (counter)action for annulment in isolation without eliminating the independent claim to which they to which they are related, there is generally no need for legal protection. The subject matter of the patent in suit is is not extended by these sub-claims as such. At most, they can in a specific, but then case, but then have a concrete effect on the interpretation in the context of determining the the scope of protection of an independent claim. 3. The appropriate number of auxiliary requests pursuant to R. 30.1 (c) RP depends on the circumstances of the individual case. In this context. The number of attacks on the patent in suit may also be taken into account.

The Mannheim Local Division dismissed an infringement action and partially revoked the patent due to the inadmissible extension. The Court went into detail regarding a potential infringement by equivalence (which it rejected) and the patent's validity and the application to amend the patent, stating that the maximum of auxiliary requests depended on the individual circumstances. [To be amended]