2025-11-25 - CoA - Meril et al. v. Meril et al. - UPC_CoA_464/2024, UPC_CoA_457/2024, UPC_CoA_458/2024, UPC_CoA_530/2024, UPC_CoA_532/2024, UPC_CoA_533/2024, UPC_CoA_21/2025, UPC_CoA_27/2025

Competence 1. The concept of the “same parties” of Art. 33(4) UPCA must be understood as requiring the parties to be identical. There may be such a degree of identity between the interests of two legal entities that a judgment delivered against one of them would have the force of res judicata as against the other. In such a situation, the entities must be considered to be one and the same party for the purposes of the application of Art. 33(4) second sentence UPCA. Admissibility of application to amend the patent 2. Under R. 49.2 RoP, the Defence to revocation may include an application to amend the patent. Pursuant to R. 50.2 in conjunction with R. 30.2 RoP, a subsequent request to amend the patent may only be admitted into the proceedings with the permission of the Court. When deciding on a subsequent request to amend the patent, the Court must take into account all the relevant circumstances of the case, including whether the party seeking the subsequent amendment is able to justify that i) the amendment in question could not have been made with reasonable diligence at an earlier stage, and ii) the amendment will not unreasonably hinder the other party in the conduct of the action. The Court of First Instance has a margin of discretion in this respect. The review by the Court of Appeal is therefore limited. Claim construction 3. As a general rule, a product or process presented as an embodiment by the patent specification may be considered covered by the patent claims. However, there is room for an exception where the patent as a whole clearly teaches the person skilled in the art that the disclosed embodiment is not claimed, e.g. when it only illustrates a technical specification that is not addressed by the teaching of the patent claim. Inventive step 4. A European patent is only validly granted for an invention if – apart from other requirements – it involves an inventive step. An invention shall be considered as involving an inventive step if, having regard to the state of the art, it is not obvious to a person skilled in the art (Art. 56 EPC). 5. National courts of the various EPC countries have different approaches and use different guidelines when assessing whether an invention involves an inventive step. One of those approaches is the so-called ‘problem-solution-approach’ used by the European Patent Office (EPO) and the Technical Boards of Appeal (TBA) of the EPO. In some jurisdictions, such as France, Italy, The Netherlands and Sweden, this approach is applied as well, but not necessarily as the only possible approach. In other jurisdictions, such as Germany and the UK, other approaches – sometimes referred to as more ‘holistic’ – are used. Despite the differences in approach, all of these are merely guidelines to assist in the establishment of inventive step as required by Art. 56 EPC, that, when properly applied, should and generally do lead to the same conclusion. 6. The burden and presentation of proof with regard to the facts from which the lack of validity of the patent is derived and other circumstances favourable to the invalidity or revocation lies with the claimant in a revocation action (Art. 54 and 65(1) UPCA, R. 44(e)-(g), 25.1(b)-(d) RoP). Even though proof of certain facts, if contested, may be required, the assessment of the relevant facts and circumstances is a question of law. 7. The approach taken by the Unified Patent Court when establishing inventive step, which can already be derived from the Order of the Court of Appeal in the Nanostring v 10X Genomics case (UPC_CoA_335/2023, Order of 26 February 2024), is as follows. 8. It first has to be established what the object of the invention is, i.e. the objective problem. This must be assessed from the perspective of the person skilled in the art, with their common general knowledge, as at the application or priority date (also referred to as the effective date) of the patent. This must be done by establishing what the invention adds to the state of the art, not by looking at the individual features of the claim, but by comparing the claim as a whole in the context of the specification and the drawings, thus also considering the inventive concept underlying the invention (the technical teaching), which must be based on the technical effect(s) that the person skilled in the art, on the basis of the application, understands is (are) achieved with the claimed invention. 9. In order to avoid hindsight, the objective problem should not contain pointers to the claimed solution. The claimed solution is obvious when at the effective date the person skilled in the art, starting from a realistic starting point in the state of the art in the relevant field of technology and wishing to solve the objective problem, would (and not only “could”) have arrived at the claimed solution. 10. The relevant field of technology is the specific field relevant to the objective problem to be solved as well as any field in which the same or similar problem arises and of which the person skilled in the art in the art of the specific field must be expected to be aware. 11. A starting point is realistic if the teaching thereof would have been of interest to a person skilled in the art who, at the effective date, wishes to solve the objective problem. This may for instance be the case if the relevant piece of prior art already discloses several features similar to those relevant to the invention as claimed and/or addresses the same or a similar underlying problem as that of the claimed invention. There can be more than one realistic starting point, and the claimed invention must be inventive starting from each of them. 12. The person skilled in the art has no inventive skills and no imagination and requires a pointer or motivation (in German: “Anlass”) that, starting from a realistic starting point, directs them to implement a next step in the direction of the claimed invention. As a general rule, a claimed solution must be considered not inventive/obvious when the person skilled in the art would take the next step, prompted by the pointer or as a matter of routine, and arrive at the claimed invention. 13. For an inventive step to be present, it is not necessary to show improvement of the technical teaching as defined by the patent claims over the prior art. Inventive step may also be found if the patent claims disclose a non-obvious alternative to solutions known in the prior art. Permanent injunctions 14. Where the proprietor files an infringement action and the Court finds that an intellectual property right has been infringed or is threatened to be infringed, it shall issue an order prohibiting the continuation of the infringement unless there are special reasons for not doing so. 15. A special reason for denying an injunction may apply if, in the circumstances of the particular case, granting an injunction does not comply with the general obligations of Art. 3 of the Enforcement Directive, in particular the obligation that the remedies shall be proportionate. 16. When considering the proportionality of injunctive relief and corrective measures, not only the interests of the parties to the litigation but also the interests of third parties, such as patients, may be taken into account. Interim award of costs 17. As a general rule, Art. 69(1) UPCA and R. 150(2) RoP do not entitle the successful party to an interim reimbursement of representation costs of more than 50% of the ceiling of recoverable costs as adopted by the Administrative Committee under R. 152.2 RoP.

Landmark CoA decision establishing the UPC's inventive step framework (objective problem, realistic starting point, would-arrive test), confirming that Art. 63(1) UPCA creates a civil law claim to injunctive relief (not discretionary), and allowing patient interests to limit injunctions proportionally. Patent maintained under Auxiliary Request II. Infringement by Meril Myval Octacor upheld. Injunction modified for XL heart valves (physician notification replaces Edwards portal). Interim cost awards capped at 50% of recoverable ceiling.