2026-04-16 - LD Mannheim - Corning Incorporated v. TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG and others - UPC_CFI_414/2025
- Aktenzeichen:
- UPC_CFI_414/2025
- Datum:
- Spruchkörper:
- Court of First Instance - Mannheim (DE) Local Division
- Art:
- Decision
- Parteien:
- Corning Incorporated v. TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG and others
Kernaussage: The Mannheim Local Division held that EP 3 296 274 (Corning's method for producing alkali-free boroalumino-silicate glass sheets) is valid and infringed.
2026-04-16 - LD Mannheim - Corning Incorporated
v.
TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG and others - UPC_CFI_414/2025
notable
The Mannheim Local Division enforced a method patent for making alkali-free glass sheets against television sellers whose sets contained glass produced by that method, and dismissed the counterclaim for revocation by adopting the reasoning of the Munich Central Division in the parallel revocation action on the same patent. Two procedural points carry the decision. First, the attacked embodiment may be defined abstractly by the features of the claim rather than by model designations: with a claim to a very specific oxide composition the operative part can reach any glass sheet from an unlicensed supplier made by the claimed method, and it is for the defendant to keep itself compliant. Second, an allegation of infringement that the defendant does not specifically contest is held to be true under R. 171.2 RoP, so no evidence needs to be indicated or assessed; a statement that current production does not infringe is no answer to an allegation about the relevant past. On validity, a prior-art range does not disclose a claimed ratio that is only randomly met when working inside it — direct and unambiguous disclosure requires the ratio to be inevitable. The holding company at the top of the group escaped liability because Belkin v Philips requires more than shareholder status, and publication of the decision was refused for want of a legitimate interest.
Nichtigkeitsgründe
Art. 138 EPCNovelty
Patent survived (this ground)Art. 54 EPC · Art. 138(1)(a) EPC
“The novelty ground failed [97]-[116]. WO 2006/115997 (CC9) is Art. 54(3) EPC prior art and does not anticipate, the panel adopting the Munich CD reasoning. WO 02/098810 (CC11) discloses very broad compositional ranges in which the claimed Σ[RO]/[Al₂O₃] ratio is only randomly met: all four alkaline earth oxides are optional, MgO and CaO have no preference over SrO and BaO, and Al₂O₃ runs to 25 wt%, so nothing links the sum of the alkaline earths to the alumina content [106]-[113]. Nor does CC11 guide the skilled person to a composition that both meets the ratio and suits a downdraw process, the defendants' own test report putting the liquidus viscosity of a CC11 composition at 84,107.50 poises against the 100,000 poises a skilled person would require [114]-[116].”
Inventive Step
Patent survived (this ground)Art. 56 EPC · Art. 138(1)(a) EPC
“The inventive-step ground failed on all three starting points [117]-[189]. From US 2002/0082158 (CC19) there is no pointer that arsenic and antimony can be replaced by tin at all — cerium oxide is the only substitute shown, tin never appears without them, and the four examples meeting the claimed ratio use no tin — nor any motivation to add 1 to 3 mol% MgO, which CC19 keeps at or below 1 mol% and links to a fall in liquidus viscosity [129]-[138]. From Examples 15 and 10 of JP 2004-189535 (CC20) there is no prompt to drop antimony, which CC20 positively recommends with tin below 1.0%, and none to add MgO to a composition whose zero content sits in CC20's preferred range [160]-[173]. From Example 10 of JP 2001-348247 (CC27) there is no motivation to add a fining agent at all, since CC27's examples use none and contain no tin [178]-[184].”
Added Matter
Patent survived (this ground)Art. 123(2) EPC · Art. 138(1)(c) EPC
“The Art. 138(1)(c) with Art. 123(2) EPC ground failed [87]-[92]. Applying Amgen v Sanofi, literal support is not required and the features need not be found in one paragraph or one example; the subject matter of claim 1 is directly and unambiguously derivable from the parent and the original application as a whole, and the panel adopted the Munich CD's reasoning. Because the patent is a divisional the test was run against each earlier application under Art. 138(1)(c) and Art. 76 EPC. The dependent claims were not examined, the counterclaim having failed on the independent claim [190]-[192].”
Insufficiency of Disclosure
Patent survived (this ground)Art. 83 EPC · Art. 138(1)(b) EPC
“The Art. 138(1)(b) EPC ground failed [93]-[96]. Disclosure of at least one way of performing the invention — one technical concept where the feature is functional — suffices, and the unavailability of some embodiments within a functional claim is immaterial; the burden lies on the party invoking invalidity. The panel added that sufficiency and inventive step are assessed differently, because the skilled person may use the teaching of the patent when asking about sufficiency but not when starting from a prior-art document.”