2026-02-24 - CD Munich - UPM-Kymmene Oyj v. International N&H Denmark - UPC_CFI_829/2024
- Aktenzeichen:
- UPC_CFI_829/2024
- Datum:
- Spruchkörper:
- Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Central Division - Section
- Art:
- Decision
- Parteien:
- UPM Kymmene Oyj v. International N&H Denmark ApS
Kernaussage: ENGLISH:
2026-02-24 - CD Munich - UPM-Kymmene Oyj
v.
International N&H Denmark - UPC_CFI_829/2024
ENGLISH:
1. The patentee is responsible for drafting claims that adequately define the subject matter for which protection is sought. This is particularly the case for composition claims containing numerical ranges of ingredients. For such claims, the skilled person may reasonably expect that the patentee is precise and diligent in specifying the components of a claimed composition.
2. Absent an inextricable link between a claimed composition and an inventive process for the production of a known end-product, no inventive step can be acknowledged for an otherwise non-inventive composition relied upon as an intermediate product.
notable
The Munich CD revoked EP 2 611 800 (sugar compositions for xylitol production) on both added matter and inventive step grounds. On claim construction, the court held that the marker molecule concentration range (100 PPB to 0.5%) must be calculated relative to the total composition, not to total sugar concentration — the claim lacked an explicit basis specification, and the patentee's responsibility for precise drafting of numerical ranges in composition claims was emphasized. This interpretation led to added matter because the application as filed only disclosed the range relative to total sugar concentration. On inventive step, the court rejected the defendant's 'intermediate product' argument — absent an inextricable link between the claimed composition and an inventive process, no inventive step can be acknowledged for an otherwise non-inventive composition. The process described in the patent (Fig. 10) was too general to establish such a link. Subsequent auxiliary requests (6a, 14a, 18a) were excluded under R. 30.2/50.2 RoP.
Stichwörter
ENGLISH: Claim interpretation. Intermediate product. Numerical ranges. Composition claims. Sugar compositions. Marker molecule. Product-by-process features. Added matter. Inventive step of intermediate products. Inextricable link. Subsequent Auxiliary Requests. Revocation.
Nichtigkeitsgründe
Art. 138 EPCInventive Step
Patent invalid (this ground)Art. 56 EPC · Art. 138(1)(a) EPC
“No inventive step. Composition known from prior art (WO 2010/046532). Defendant's 'intermediate product' defense failed — no inextricable link to inventive process. Fig. 10 too general. Patent lacked examples, experimental data, or information on technical effect of claimed composition as intermediate. Product-by-process features (ARs 13, 18) equally invalid. [74-87]”
Added Matter
Patent invalid (this ground)Art. 123(2) EPC · Art. 138(1)(c) EPC
“Added matter found. Claim 1 marker molecule range interpreted relative to total composition, but application only disclosed it relative to total sugar concentration. This is technically relevant new information — different compositions fall within scope depending on calculation basis. [58-64]”