2025-12-05 - LD Düsseldorf - Roche v. Menarini - UPC_CFI_712/2025

DEUTSCH: 1. Ein als selbstständiger Nebenanspruch ausgestalteter Verfahrensanspruch und die entspre-chende Beschreibung können für die Bestimmung des Schutzbereichs eines selbstständigen Erzeugnisanspruchs nur insoweit relevant sein, als sich aus der Patentschrift Anhaltspunkte dafür ergeben, dass hiermit zugleich Eigenschaften des beanspruchten Erzeugnisses be-schrieben werden. 2. Eine die Benutzungsform des Herstellens umfassende Unterlassungsanordnung kann auch dann ergehen, wenn das patentverletzende Produkt bislang von einem Dritten außerhalb der Vertragsmitgliedsstaaten hergestellt wird. // ENGLISH: 1. An independent process claim and the corresponding description can only be relevant when determining the scope of protection of an independent product claim if the patent specification indicates that it also describes characteristics of the claimed product. 2. An injunction covering the making of a product may also be issued if the infringing product has so far been manufactured by a third party outside the contracting member states.

The Düsseldorf Local Division granted provisional measures against three Menarini distributors over EP 1 962 668 B1 (implantable sandwich sensor). On construction, the panel held that the patent is its own lexicon: the claimed electrode comprises the electrode system and the electrode contact layer as one multi-layer unit, and where a substrate has more than one width the width relevant to the entire-width feature is the width in the region of the electrode layers, not the bulk width. Because claim 1 is a product claim, the route of manufacture is in principle irrelevant; an independent process claim and the corresponding description bear on product-claim scope only where the specification indicates that they also describe properties of the claimed product (headnote 1). Validity was sufficiently certain under R. 211.2 RoP, priority was validly claimed and the novelty and inventive-step attacks failed, and the applicants had not delayed unreasonably under R. 211.4 RoP, there being no general market-monitoring duty. The injunction extends to making although the product is currently made by a third party outside the contracting member states (headnote 2); custody with a bailiff was ordered under R. 211.1(b) RoP; and the information order was granted only for origin and distribution channels, information serving the calculation of damages being outside the reach of provisional measures.