2026-01-15 - LD Düsseldorf - Google et al. v. Google et al. - UPC_CFI_100/2024 (IA), UPC_CFI_411/2024 (CC)
- Aktenzeichen:
- UPC_CFI_100/2024 (IA), UPC_CFI_411/2024 (CC)
- Datum:
- Spruchkörper:
- Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division
- Art:
- Order
- Parteien:
- Ona Patents SL v. Google
Kernaussage: 1.
2026-01-15 - LD Düsseldorf - Google et al.
v.
Google et al. - UPC_CFI_100/2024 (IA), UPC_CFI_411/2024 (CC)
1. The Rules of Procedure show that in constellations where a claimant wants to obtain a decision to remove the effects of a granted patent (be it the validity of the patent or the declaration that a specific act does not constitute an infringement) the law priori-tizes the registration over the entitlement. Ratio legis is the legal certainty for the claimant. It does not have the burden to “search” the entitled proprietor.
2. If a product consists of different components, the alleged infringing product must show every claimed component. Cases where only certain features of a product are infringed may be examples for an indirect infringement (Art. 26 UPCA), but not for direct infringement (Art. 25 UPCA).
notable
The Düsseldorf LD dismissed both an infringement action by patent exploitation company Ona Patents against Google and Google's counterclaim for revocation of EP 2 263 098 (positioning engine technology). On infringement, the court held that for direct infringement under Art. 25 UPCA, the alleged infringing product must contain every claimed component — since the controller feature was located on accessories (earphones/watches) rather than the contested phones/tablets, direct infringement failed. On validity, the patent survived novelty and inventive step attacks based on multiple prior art documents, with the distinguishing feature 9.12.3 (adjusting time intervals between transmission requests based on the PAOS) not found in any prior art. The court also applied the CoA's inventive step framework from Meril v Edwards and Amgen v Sanofi. Additionally, the court established that under R. 8.6 RoP, registration prevails over entitlement for determining proprietorship in revocation proceedings.
Stichwörter
Register, proprietor, Rule 25 RoP, Rule 42 RoP, Rule 8.6 RoP; direct infringement, indirect infringement
Nichtigkeitsgründe
Art. 138 EPCNovelty
Patent survived (this ground)Art. 54 EPC · Art. 138(1)(a) EPC
“Patent novel over D1-D5. Feature 9.12.3 not anticipated.”
Inventive Step
Patent survived (this ground)Art. 56 EPC · Art. 138(1)(a) EPC
“CoA framework applied. All prior art combinations failed.”
Added Matter
Patent survived (this ground)Art. 123(2) EPC · Art. 138(1)(c) EPC
“No added matter for feature group 9.12 or 1.4.2.”