2025-05-29 - CD Paris - Lindal Dispenser v. Rocep-Lusol - UPC_CFI_202/2024

Aktenzeichen:
UPC_CFI_202/2024
Datum:
Spruchkörper:
Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat
Art:
Decision
Parteien:
Lindal Dispenser GmbH v. Rocep-Lusol Holdings Limited

Kernaussage: 1.

2025-05-29 - CD Paris - Lindal Dispenser v. Rocep-Lusol - UPC_CFI_202/2024
Eine Entscheidung, mehrere Registereinträge

Das Gericht hat diese Verfahren zusammen entschieden und dasselbe Dokument in jedem davon eingestellt. Jeder Eintrag unten ist ein eigener vollwertiger Registereintrag.

🏛️Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat• Decision
📅2025-05-29
🔢UPC_CFI_202/2024
Parteien & Vertreter
Kläger / Berufungsführer
Lindal Dispenser GmbH
Véronique PEDE
Beklagter / Berufungsbeklagter
Rocep-Lusol Holdings Limited
Philip Matthew DIXON
📋ORD_69115/2024
⚖️Revocation Action
🌐English

1. Article 57 ‘EPC’, according to which “an invention shall be considered as susceptible of industrial application if it can be made or used in any kind of industry, including agriculture” must be interpreted as meaning that an invention or an application for a patent for an alleged invention which would not comply with the generally accepted laws of physics falls within its scope because it cannot be used and therefore lacks industrial application. 2. Drawings must always be used as explanatory aids for the interpretation of the patent claim but cannot be used to extract a characteristic when definitively and unambiguously contradicted by the description. 3. In the event that the patent proprietor applies to amend the patent and proposes more alternative auxiliary requests, these auxiliary requests must be addressed in the order indicated by the applicant, in the absence of specific elements and/or requests suggesting otherwise

The Paris Central Division partially revoked a patent due to a lack of industrial application and upheld the patent with a limitation introduced by the Defendant during the proceedings. The Court went into detail regarding claim construction and the consideration of drawings as well as the order in which auxiliary requests are to be addressed.
Stichwörter
lack of industrial application; claim interpretation; auxiliary requests

Nichtigkeitsgründe

Art. 138 EPC
4 Gründe
Novelty
Art. 54 EPC · Art. 138(1)(a) EPC
Patent survived (this ground)
“Novelty upheld. WO'010 no clearance.”
Inventive Step
Art. 56 EPC · Art. 138(1)(a) EPC
Patent survived (this ground)
“Inventive step upheld. Synergistic effect.”
Insufficiency of Disclosure
Art. 83 EPC · Art. 138(1)(b) EPC
Patent survived (this ground)
“Sufficiency upheld.”
Non-patentable Subject Matter
Art. 52(2) EPC · Art. 138(1)(a) EPC
Patent invalid (this ground)
“Claim 5 lacks industrial application (physically impossible).”
Feststellungen aus Sicht des Patentinhabers bezeichnet. Quelle: KI-Klassifikation (AI)

Entscheidung teilen

Weitere Navigation
Entscheidungen
Rechtstexte
Analysen

Zu Sammlung hinzufügen

0 Einträge hinzufügen zu:

Anmeldung

Registrieren