2025-07-10 - LD Hamburg - Xiaomi et al. v. Xiaomi et al. - UPC_CFI_173/2024; UPC_CFI_424/2024

1. If the actual core of the auxiliary requests for maintenance of the patent in the alternative according to R. 30 RP is small, the opposing party is not faced with unreasonable challenges with regard to its submission, even if the number of auxiliary requests is quite high, Rule 30.1 lit. c) RP . 2. An inadmissible amendment in the sense of an intermediate generalisation exists if a term has been dropped from the claim wording which was still contained in the version requested , Art. 123(2) and (3) EPC. 3. If a citation has a comparable mode of operation but a different field of application (setting the resonant frequency of an antenna device in a receiver for near-field communication) compared to the claimed system (design and manufacture of a power receiver for wireless charging), it is not a prior art document that the skilled person would refer to in the search for the solution to the problem of the patent in suit, Art. 54 and 56 EPC.

The Hamburg Local Division partially invalidated a patent due to an inadmissible extension, granted the application to amend the patent but found that the patent was not infringed in its new shape and thus dismissed the infringement action. The Court went into detail regarding claim construction, the patent's validity and admissibility of the application to amend the patent, in particular regarding the amount of auxiliary requests.