2026-05-29 - LD Copenhagen - Infotech Concept et al. v. Hybridgenerator - UPC_CFI_89/2025
- Aktenzeichen:
- UPC_CFI_89/2025
- Datum:
- Spruchkörper:
- Court of First Instance - Copenhagen (DK) Local Division
- Art:
- Decision
- Parteien:
- Hybridgenerator ApS v. HGSystem ApS etc.
Kernaussage: ENGLISH:
2026-05-29 - LD Copenhagen - Infotech Concept et al.
v.
Hybridgenerator - UPC_CFI_89/2025
ENGLISH:
An invention is sufficiently disclosed if the patent specification shows the skilled person at leastone way – and in case of functional features: one technical concept – of performing the claimedinvention. The disclosure of one way of performing the invention is only sufficient if it allows theinvention to be performed in the whole range claimed. More precisely, the disclosure shall enablea person skilled in the art to perform the invention without undue burden over the full scope ofprotection.
notable
The Copenhagen Local Division revoked EP 4 238 202 B1 (a mobile hybrid generator system) in full on three independent grounds and dismissed the parallel infringement action. Construing the negative functional features 1.6-1.8 of claim 1 as a categorical prohibition on any connection between the primary energy source and the inverter, the Court held the patent insufficient under Art. 83 EPC: the same battery poles serve both charging and discharging, so the first (continuous-output) embodiment necessarily creates a direct generator-battery-inverter path during recharging, and the specification discloses no switching scheme or BMS architecture enabling the exclusion across the whole claimed scope - forcing the skilled person to create new technical insight, an undue burden. The Court further found the second (intermittent-output) embodiment anticipated by GB2434928A and claim 1 obvious over GB2493631A, where only the dimensioning feature 1.9 distinguishes and the prior art itself prompts that feature. Applying the Court of Appeal's Amgen v Sanofi sufficiency test and the Meril/Amgen inventive-step framework, while rejecting the Art. 123(2) EPC added-matter attack, the Court refused all four auxiliary requests and awarded the defendants full costs (combined reimbursement ceiling EUR 112,000).
Stichwörter
ENGLISH:
Counterclaim for revocation, person skilled in the art, inventive step, sufficiency of disclosure,novelty, infringement.
Nichtigkeitsgründe
Art. 138 EPCNovelty
Patent invalid (this ground)Art. 54 EPC · Art. 138(1)(a) EPC
“The second (intermittent-output) embodiment of claim 1 is anticipated by the 'alternative embodiment' of GB2434928A (p.5 l.22-27), which discloses features 1.6 and 1.7 (output 'by the batteries only'; generator 'routes all of the voltage to the batteries to charge them') together with feature 1.9 (p.6 l.2-6: surge rating dictated by the batteries and inverter, so the engine need not meet peak power). Dependent claims 2, 4, 6, 10, 11, 14 and 15 also lack novelty over GB2434928A.”
Inventive Step
Patent invalid (this ground)Art. 56 EPC · Art. 138(1)(a) EPC
“Claim 1 is obvious over GB2493631A (D1, closest prior art per the EPO grant file), only feature 1.9 distinguishing. The skilled person solving the objective problem of optimising the dimensioning of the primary energy source would arrive at feature 1.9 without inventive effort, prompted by GB2493631A's own para 0015 (ESS supports the engine during load spikes) and, on an alternative path, by US20140277791A1 para 0049 (generator sized for average not peak load) - two non-inventive routes.”
Added Matter
Patent survived (this ground)Art. 123(2) EPC · Art. 138(1)(c) EPC
“The Court rejected the Art. 123(2) EPC attack: inverter dimensioning is already implicit in feature 1.9 read in context; the generalisation from a combustion engine to a generic 'primary energy source' is legitimate because the teaching is not tied to engine-specific properties; and labelling the normal/peak 'power requirements' merely names power levels the application already disclosed.”
Insufficiency of Disclosure
Patent invalid (this ground)Art. 83 EPC · Art. 138(1)(b) EPC
“Features 1.6-1.8 construed as a categorical bar on any primary-source/inverter connection; the patent teaches no switching or BMS concept to achieve that exclusion across the full scope. In the first (continuous-output) embodiment the shared battery poles inherently connect the DC generator to the inverter during charging, and devising a rotating coupling scheme not mentioned anywhere in the patent is an undue burden. Patent revoked under Art. 83 EPC / Art. 65(2) UPCA / Art. 138(1)(b) EPC.”
Inoffiziell
Inoffizielle KI-Übersetzung
Dies ist eine automatische, von KI erstellte Übersetzung, die Fehler enthalten kann. Rechtsverbindlich ist allein das Originaldokument in der Verfahrenssprache (Danish).