2026-10-20 - LD Mannheim - Huawei v. HMD Global - UPC_CFI_481/2025

Aktenzeichen:
UPC_CFI_481/2025
Datum:
Spruchkörper:
Court of First Instance - Mannheim (DE) Local Division
Art:
Decision
Parteien:
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v. HMD Global Oy

Kernaussage: 1.

2026-10-20 - LD Mannheim - Huawei v. HMD Global - UPC_CFI_481/2025
🏛️Court of First Instance - Mannheim (DE) Local Division• Decision
📅2026-10-20
🔢UPC_CFI_481/2025
Parteien & Vertreter
Kläger / Berufungsführer
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.
Ole DIRKS
Beklagter / Berufungsbeklagter
HMD Global Oy
Oliver BÄCKER
⚖️Infringement Action
🌐English

1. In the absence of any pointer to the opposite, it must be assumed that a feature in a patent claim has a technical significance within the teaching of the claim and contributes to the teaching and its technical effect. 2. When assessing the disclosure content of an (priority) application, hindsight must be avoided. It is not sufficient that the skilled person having the granted patent claim in mind might recognize elements of the granted patent claim in the priority application and assign them accordingly to features of the granted patent. On the contrary, the subject-matter of the granted patent claim must be directly and unambiguously apparent from the content of the priority application, without prior knowledge of the granted patent claim.

notable
The Mannheim LD revoked the SEP to the extent attacked and dismissed the infringement action, without reaching the FRAND defence. The decisive ground was an invalid priority claim: applying the Art. 123(2) EPC gold-standard disclosure test to the priority application under Art. 87 EPC, the Court held that a feature requiring time unit format information relating to a configuration period was not directly and unambiguously disclosed, so the patent was entitled only to its filing date and was anticipated by an intervening version of the 3GPP standard. The Court stressed that the priority test must be applied without hindsight: it is not enough that a reader who knows the granted claim can map passages of the priority document onto its features. In claim construction it presumed that every claim feature has technical significance unless something points to the contrary, and it held that a patentee asserting that a term had a well-known meaning at the priority date bears a secondary burden to substantiate the source of that meaning. None of the auxiliary requests or separately defended dependent claims restored priority, and the patentee offered no novelty defence against the intervening standard for any limited version.
Stichwörter
Claim construction, invalid priority claim

Nichtigkeitsgründe

Art. 138 EPC
2 Gründe
Novelty
Art. 54 EPC · Art. 138(1)(a) EPC
Patent invalid (this ground)
“With priority lost, the 3GPP specifications TS 38.213 V15.2.0, TS 38.331 V15.2.1 and TS 38.214 V15.2.0 (D1A-D1C, read as a single disclosure) anticipate claims 1, 5, 9 and 10 and all auxiliary requests; the claimant did not contest anticipation absent valid priority [103]-[143].”
Priority
Art. 87 EPC · derivative
Patent invalid (this ground)
“The attack on the priority claim succeeded: feature 1.1.4 (time unit format information comprising a quantity of UL/DL-configured time units in a configuration period) is not directly and unambiguously disclosed in the Chinese priority application, neither in its fifth aspect nor in Embodiment 3, so the patent has only its filing date of 10 August 2018 [86], [88]-[102].”
Feststellungen aus Sicht des Patentinhabers bezeichnet. Quelle: KI-Klassifikation (AI)

Entscheidung teilen

Weitere Navigation
Entscheidungen
Rechtstexte
Analysen

Zu Sammlung hinzufügen

0 Einträge hinzufügen zu:

Anmeldung

Registrieren