2026-10-06 - LD Düsseldorf - Inficon v. Elitech Technology et al. - UPC_CFI_137/2025
- Aktenzeichen:
- UPC_CFI_137/2025
- Datum:
- Spruchkörper:
- Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division
- Art:
- Decision
- Parteien:
- Inficon GmbH v. Elitech Technology, Inc., Elitech UK Ltd.
Kernaussage: The Düsseldorf Local Division dismissed both Inficon's infringement action against Elitech's METRUM sniffing leak detector and Elitech's counterclaim for revocation of a patent on a sniffing leak detector with a remote reference gas inlet and a buffer chamber that homogeneously…
2026-10-06 - LD Düsseldorf - Inficon
v.
Elitech Technology et al. - UPC_CFI_137/2025
notable
The Düsseldorf Local Division dismissed both Inficon's infringement action against Elitech's METRUM sniffing leak detector and Elitech's counterclaim for revocation of a patent on a sniffing leak detector with a remote reference gas inlet and a buffer chamber that homogeneously mixes reference gas. Construing the claim functionally and refusing to limit it by figures or embodiments, the Court held that the counterclaimant failed on added matter, novelty and inventive step because no prior art disclosed a buffer chamber permitting homogeneous mixing and no pointer or motivation to combine documents was presented; once the independent claim stood, no decision on the dependent claims was needed. On infringement, the claimant's measurements showed delayed detection but not that the housing itself retained and homogeneously mixed gas, and because the measurements were inconclusive from the outset, the defendants' failure to supply their own measurements did not amount to an admission under R. 171.2 RoP. An interim award of costs under R. 150.2 RoP was refused because success was split.
Nichtigkeitsgründe
Art. 138 EPCNovelty
Patent survived (this ground)Art. 54 EPC · Art. 138(1)(a) EPC
“Neither CC1 (blank filter 436) nor CC2 (filter in the reference gas conduit) discloses a buffer chamber permitting homogeneous mixing; a filter removes interfering components rather than mixing [145]-[161].”
Inventive Step
Patent survived (this ground)Art. 56 EPC · Art. 138(1)(a) EPC
“Under the CoA framework (Meril v Edwards, Amgen v Sanofi) the attacks from CC3 with CC4 or CC1 and from CC5 failed for lack of any pointer or motivation and because no document disclosed the buffer chamber; CC5's overpressure container is designed to keep target gas out [162]-[187].”
Added Matter
Patent survived (this ground)Art. 123(2) EPC · Art. 138(1)(c) EPC
“The negative definition 'not arranged on the sniffer tip probe', the changed reference point of the 'remote distance', 'defining' instead of 'circumscribing' and 'permits to' instead of 'adapted to' are all directly and unambiguously derivable from the application as filed [122]-[144].”