2025-01-28 - LD Düsseldorf - Fujifilm v. Kodak - UPC_CFI_355/2023

1. If the defendant is domiciled in a Contracting Member State (here: Germany), the Unified Patent Court has jurisdiction to hear the infringement action in respect of the UK part of the patent in suit. This also applies if the defendant has filed a counterclaim for revocation in respect of the German part of the patent in suit. Even then, as regards the infringement action concerning the United Kingdom, the Unified Patent Court has jurisdiction to hear the case. 2. The terms used in a claim should normally be given their broadest technically sensible meaning in the context of the claim in which they appear. Art. 69 EPC and its Protocol do not provide a justification for excluding what is literally covered by the terms of the claims by a narrowing claim construction based on the description or the drawings. A narrowing interpretation of the claims which deviates from the broader general understanding of the terms used therein by a skilled person can only be permitted if there are convincing reasons based on the circumstances of the individual case in question. 3. Implicit disclosure means no more than the clear, immediate and unambiguous consequence of what is explicitly mentioned in a prior-art document. Therefore, “implicit disclosure” encompasses any feature which a person skilled in the art would objectively consider as necessarily implied in the explicit content of a prior-art document, e.g. in view of general scientific laws. A claimed feature is also implicitly disclosed if, in carrying out the teaching of a prior-art document, the skilled person would inevitably arrive at a result falling within the terms of a claim. Whether a known product possesses an implicit feature does not depend on whether the skilled person's attention is drawn to precisely that feature by a prior art document or their common general knowledge, but merely on whether, from a purely objective perspective, said product inevitably must possess that feature. 4. To comply with Art. 123(2) EPC, the subject-matter of an amended claim must be directly and unambiguously taught to the skilled person by the original application. A direct teaching requires that the subject-matter is originally taught as specific, clearly defined and recognizable individual embodiment, either explicitly or implicitly, without the necessity of applying any deductive skills. An unambiguous teaching requires that it has to be beyond doubt – not merely probable – that the claimed subject-matter of an amended claim was disclosed as such in the application as originally filed.

The Düsseldorf Local Division revoked the patent in suit and dismissed the infringement action. Most notably, the Court assumed jurisdiction for the United Kingdom.