2025-02-14 - CoA - Abbott v. Sibio Technology - UPC_CoA_382/2024
- Aktenzeichen:
- UPC_CoA_382/2024
- Datum:
- Spruchkörper:
- Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU)
- Art:
- Appeal Decision
- Parteien:
- Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v. Sibio Technology Limited, Umedwings Netherlands B.V.
Kernaussage: 1.
2025-02-14 - CoA - Abbott
v.
Sibio Technology - UPC_CoA_382/2024
1. As a general principle of claim interpretation, means-plus-function features must be understood as any feature suitable for carrying out the function.
2. A general injunction may be justified even if it is not shown that a patent is infringed by all possible infringing acts. One type of (likely) infringement suffices as a basis for a general preliminary injunction, which includes all possible ways of infringing.
3. The measures mentioned in Art. 67 UPCA may also be ordered in the framework of provisional measure proceedings, always provided that there is an urgent interest and such measures are proportionate.
The Court of Appeal reversed an order by the LD The Hague granting an application for provisional measures and ordering a preliminary injunction which was previously rejected. The CoA applied a rather lenient standard regarding urgency and clarified its approach for claim interpretation and judging the "added matter" attack.
Finally, the CoA clarified that an injunction could be awarded "on general terms", without restricting it to specific products.
Stichwörter
urgency, balance of interest, infringement, claim construction, general injunction, order to provide information, added matter
Nichtigkeitsgründe
Art. 138 EPCNovelty
Patent survived (this ground)Art. 54 EPC · Art. 138(1)(a) EPC
“Both novelty attacks were held more likely to fail than to succeed. In the first document the base of the sensor unit, not the control unit, is what is adhered to the skin, so the base-portion features and the recess are absent; in the second the piston is part of the sensor assembly and cannot also be the base portion of the enclosure, and its two figures show distinct embodiments that may not be combined [91]-[113].”
Inventive Step
Patent survived (this ground)Art. 56 EPC · Art. 138(1)(a) EPC
“Six obviousness combinations failed. The inventive concept is a device configured so that it can be adhered to the skin in a single action, the sensor assembly being received into the recess from beneath while still in the applicator; every cited document either applies the base to the skin first and the electronics afterwards, or couples the assemblies from above, and no pointer to the claimed configuration was identified [114]-[133].”
Added Matter
Patent survived (this ground)Art. 123(2) EPC · Art. 138(1)(c) EPC
“The Court of Appeal reversed the first-instance finding. The combination of features has a basis in the original application, the exact wording of the application need not be reproduced, and none of the six omissions attacked — elastomeric sealing, a sharp, an enclosure "surrounding" the electronics, the shell and mounting wording, the arrangeable-in-position language, and the electrical contacts in the sealing member — conveys new information to the skilled person [51]-[88].”