2026-04-08 - CD Munich - WIRPLAST – Więcek Spółka Jawna v. VILPE - UPC_CFI_280/2025
- Aktenzeichen:
- UPC_CFI_280/2025
- Datum:
- Spruchkörper:
- Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Central Division - Section
- Art:
- Decision
- Parteien:
- WIRPLAST v. VILPE Oy
Kernaussage: Even if a certain prior art document in the same technical field as the patent in suit is considered to be a realistic starting point, it can be relevant for the assessment of inventive step that it relates to a different kind of device and solves a different problem than the in…
2026-04-08 - CD Munich - WIRPLAST – Więcek Spółka Jawna
v.
VILPE - UPC_CFI_280/2025
Even if a certain prior art document in the same technical field as the patent in suit is considered to be a realistic starting point, it can be relevant for the assessment of inventive step that it relates to a different kind of device and solves a different problem than the invention of the patent.
notable
Revocation dismissed — inventive step upheld. The court applies the CoA's Amgen/Sanofi + Meril/Edwards inventive step framework. Key holding: even where prior art in the same technical field qualifies as a realistic starting point, the inventive step analysis must account for whether it relates to a different kind of device and addresses a different technical problem. Where the starting point solves a fundamentally different problem, the skilled person lacks motivation to modify it toward the claimed solution. Claimant failed to meet the 'would' (not 'could') standard for all four prior art combinations. Costs: 75K EUR per party agreement (Art. 69(1) UPCA).
Stichwörter
Front-loaded procedural system. Claim interpretation. Physical and spatial configuration. Inventive step. Objective problem. Burden of proof and substantiation. Motivation for the skilled person.
Nichtigkeitsgründe
Art. 138 EPCInventive Step
Patent survived (this ground)Art. 56 EPC · Art. 138(1)(a) EPC
“Revocation for lack of inventive step (Art. 56 EPC) dismissed. D1 is a realistic starting point but solves a fundamentally different problem. Claimant failed to substantiate motivation for all four combinations (D1+CGK, D1+D2, D1+D3, D1+D4). [75, 78-80, 88, 96, 103-105]”