2026-02-24 - CD Munich - TCL v. Corning - UPC_CFI_337/2025
- Aktenzeichen:
- UPC_CFI_337/2025
- Datum:
- Spruchkörper:
- Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Central Division - Section
- Art:
- Decision
- Parteien:
- TCL EUROPE SAS v. Corning Incorporated
Kernaussage: ENGLISH:
2026-02-24 - CD Munich - TCL
v.
Corning - UPC_CFI_337/2025
ENGLISH:
1. A realistic starting point is typically a prior art disclosure as a whole. Absent a specific reason or pointer in the disclosure itself (or based on common general knowledge) to do so, the selection of a particular example composition as a “starting point”, merely because it happens to come “closest” to the claimed subject matter in terms of structural components, bears the risk that such selection itself already involves hindsight.
2. Where the features of a patent claim, in an interdependent way, even if they are not synergetic in the sense of having a special combination effect, provide a solution to the objective problem, ignoring these interdependencies and dividing the objective problem up into separate problems amounts to hindsight reasoning which is to be avoided in the assessment of inventive step.
notable
The Munich CD dismissed TCL's revocation action against EP 3 296 274 (boroalumino silicate glass fining for LCD substrates). The court upheld the patent on all four grounds. On inventive step, the court issued two notable headnotes: (1) a realistic starting point is typically the prior art disclosure as a whole, not a cherry-picked example closest to the claim, as selecting such an example risks hindsight; (2) where claim features are interdependent in providing a solution, dividing the objective problem into separate sub-problems amounts to hindsight reasoning. The court emphasized that in glass chemistry, component interdependencies and non-linear behavior mean the skilled person cannot reasonably predict the outcome of simultaneous changes to multiple parameters, defeating arguments based on combining individual modifications from different references.
Stichwörter
ENGLISH:
Method claim. Added matter. Novelty. Disclosure of numerical ranges. Inventive step. Selection of starting point. Interdependency. Interdependent claim features. Inventive concept underlying the invention. Motivation. Pointer. Predictability. Reasonable expectation of success.
Nichtigkeitsgründe
Art. 138 EPCNovelty
Patent survived (this ground)Art. 54 EPC · Art. 138(1)(a) EPC
“Novel over D9 (WO 2006/115997 A2, Art. 54(3) EPC): composition in par. [0031] used for blister experiment, not for downdraw, and contained excessive SnO2 unsuitable for downdraw. Novel over D11 (WO 02/098810 A1): broad ranges requiring multiple selections without justification do not directly and unambiguously disclose claimed combination. [85-106]”
Inventive Step
Patent survived (this ground)Art. 56 EPC · Art. 138(1)(a) EPC
“Inventive step upheld over D19, D20 (Examples 15 and 10), and D27 (Example 10), each alone and in combination with secondary references D15, D17. No prior art pointed toward the specific combination of tin fining + MgO 1-3% + controlled Σ[RO]/[Al2O3] ratio for downdraw. Interdependency of features and unpredictability of glass compositions defeat piecemeal obviousness. [107-170]”
Added Matter
Patent survived (this ground)Art. 123(2) EPC · Art. 138(1)(c) EPC
“All features of claims 1-3 found directly and unambiguously derivable from the application as filed. Downdraw disclosed as preferred method throughout. Tin fining and 0.01% SnO2 minimum derivable from description as a whole. Literal support not required. [40-64]”
Insufficiency of Disclosure
Patent survived (this ground)Art. 83 EPC · Art. 138(1)(b) EPC
“Sufficiency upheld. Claim properly construed is limited to downdraw process; compositions unsuitable for downdraw fall outside claim scope. 43 working examples provide sufficient guidance. Comparative examples 44-45 provide further guidance, not evidence of insufficiency. [66-84]”