2025-11-27 - CD Milan - Pari Pharma v. Philips - UPC_CFI_613/2024
- Aktenzeichen:
- UPC_CFI_613/2024
- Datum:
- Spruchkörper:
- Court of First Instance - Milan (IT) Central Division- Section
- Art:
- Decision
- Parteien:
- Pari Pharma GmbH v. Koninklijke Philips N.V.
Kernaussage: ENGLISH:
2025-11-27 - CD Milan - Pari Pharma
v.
Philips - UPC_CFI_613/2024
ENGLISH:
1.
Any person or entity potentially trying to ascertain their “freedom to operate”, therefore any party (potentially) operating in the technical field of the patent are “concerned” by a party and have a standing to sue under Art. 47(6) UPCA.
2.
The skilled person will generally not (directly and unambiguously) deduce dimensions from schematic figures.
notable
The Milan CD partially revoked the patent — claim 1 as granted lacked novelty over D1, but claim 1 as amended (incorporating claims 4 and 5) was novel and inventive. The court established a broad standing threshold under Art. 47(6) UPCA: any party operating in the technical field has sufficient 'concern' to bring a revocation action; no warning letter required. The first auxiliary request (maintain whatever claims court finds valid) was inadmissible — patentee must specify exact amended claims under Art. 76.1 UPCA. Applied CoA Meril/Edwards + Amgen/Sanofi inventive step framework.
Nichtigkeitsgründe
Art. 138 EPCNovelty
Patent invalid (this ground)Art. 54 EPC · Art. 138(1)(a) EPC
“Claim 1 as granted lacks novelty over D1 (WO 2016/102308, Art. 54.3 EPC). D1 discloses all features in alternative embodiment without gas compressor. Purpose characteristics assessed for suitability only. [80-106]”
Inventive Step
Patent survived (this ground)Art. 56 EPC · Art. 138(1)(a) EPC
“Claim 1 as amended (AR2) inventive over all combinations. No motivation to combine hand-held nebulizer art with ventilation machine prior art. D3 teaches away. Applied CoA Meril/Edwards + Amgen/Sanofi framework. [126-202]”