2026-04-02 - LD Munich - Sia Lightguide et al. v. Biolitec et al. - UPC_CFI_714/2024; UPC_CFI_155/2025

GERMAN: 1. Eine Aussetzung des Verfahrens nach Regel 295(a) VerfO ist in der Regel nicht veranlasst, wenn der Termin zur mündlichen Verhandlung vor dem EPG vor der mündlichen Verhandlung bei der Einspruchsabteilung des Europäischen Patentamtes (EPA) stattfindet. 2. Eine Aussetzung des Verfahrens nach Regel 295 VerfO ist auch nicht zwingend deshalb veranlasst, weil die Einspruchsabteilung des EPA das Klagepatent zwischen der mündlichen Verhandlung vor dem EPG und dem vom EPG anberaumten Verkündungstermin widerrufen hat. ENGLISH: 1. A stay of proceedings under Rule 295(a) of the Rules of Procedure is generally not to be ordered if the date set for the oral proceedings before the Local Division of the UPC precedes the oral proceedings before the Opposition Division of the European Patent Office (EPO). 2. A stay of proceedings under Rule 295 of the Rules of Procedure is also not necessarily to be ordered if the Opposition Division of the EPO revoked the patent in suit between the oral proceedings before the EPG and the date set by the EPG for the announcement of the decision.

The Munich LD denied the defendants' stay request (R. 295(a) RoP) despite the EPO Opposition Division having revoked the patent in the interim. Key holding: a stay is generally not warranted when the UPC oral hearing precedes the EPO hearing, and the purpose of R. 295(a) is to enable coordination — including allowing EPO auxiliary requests to be considered by the UPC. The court preliminarily assessed the patent as granted to be invalid for added matter (Art. 123(2) EPC), agreeing with the EPO that omitting 'core' from the fusing feature is an impermissible extension. However, auxiliary request 10B was assessed as likely valid. A court-appointed expert (R. 185 RoP) was ordered to resolve three technical questions on infringement where the parties' tests yielded irreconcilable results.