2024-05-13 - CoA - SES-imagotag v. Hanshow - UPC_CoA_1/2024

Was ist diese UPC-Entscheidung?

Zusammenfassung: VusionGroup (formerly SES-imagotag), a leading electronic-shelf-label company, holds the Unitary Patent EP 3883277 (electronic label for sales surfaces with a radiofrequency peripheral device including antenna and NFC/RFID chip). In December 2023 VusionGroup applied for provisional measures against Hanshow's Nebular-350 and other Nebular and Stellar Pro models at the Munich LD. The Munich LD, interpreting claim features 7 + 8.4 (partly using prosecution history as interpretation aid), held that the antenna must be disposed SEPARATE FROM the PCB — and that Hanshow's products did not meet that requirement. PI application dismissed. VusionGroup appealed. Oral hearing: 27 March 2024. The CoA (Panel 1a — Grabinski P, Barutel, Blok rapporteur, plus technical judges Augarde and Loibner — 5-judge panel with technical composition) REJECTS the appeal. **Headnote** (concise): 'Claim features are always to be interpreted in the light of the entire claim' (Anspruchsmerkmale sind immer im Lichte des gesamten Anspruchs auszulegen). **Claim interpretation principles**: The CoA CONFIRMS and applies the foundational claim-interpretation framework from UPC_CoA_335/2023 (10x/Harvard v NanoString, 26 February 2024 — the first CoA claim-construction landmark): (1) Art. 69 EPC + Protocol on Interpretation are the basis. (2) The claim is not only the starting point but the authoritative basis for determining the scope of protection. (3) Claim interpretation does not turn on the precise linguistic wording alone — description and drawings must ALWAYS be consulted, not only to resolve ambiguities. (4) Principles govern both infringement AND validity assessment consistently. (5) Claim features must be interpreted in the light of the entire claim (new headnote). **Applied**: Claim features 7 (PCB housed in case, on the rear-face side; RF module, memory, microcontroller on the PCB) + 8.4 (antenna integrated into the case around a recess housing the display screen) together require the antenna to be positioned MORE TO THE FRONT of the electronic label than the PCB — i.e. PCB and antenna cannot be in the same plane. This is confirmed by description [0034]-[0040]: placing antenna and chip separately (on/in the case vs. on PCB) avoids electromagnetic interference and improves read distance. Prosecution history is NOT needed here; the CoA expressly leaves open the general question whether prosecution history may be used to determine scope of protection. **Infringement standard** (R.211.2 RoP / Art. 62(4) UPCA): sufficient degree of certainty = more likely than not on the balance of probabilities (following UPC_CoA_335/2023). **Applied to Hanshow products**: (1) In all contested products, the antenna is BEHIND the display screen — which alone excludes them from claim 1 (feature 8.4 requires antenna 'integrated into the case around a recess housing the display screen', i.e., not behind it). (2) Technical drawings (Exhibit TW 42) and photographs fail to show the antenna is positioned more to the front of the label than the PCB. The Nebular-350's FPC (with antenna) is at the same level as the PCB plate. (3) Recesses in the back of the case allowing the PCB to extend further back do not move the antenna forward of the PCB. (4) Batteries do not push the antenna further to the front. (5) Same assessment applies to Nebular-266, Nebular-213, Nebular-290, Nebular-750 and Stellar Pro-266. Claim 3 (dependent on claim 1) also not infringed. Territory (offer/market in UPC Member States) left open as moot. VusionGroup bears the costs of the appeal as unsuccessful party.

Stichwörter: Berufung; Antrag auf einstweiligen Maßnahmen; Auslegung des Patentanspruchs; Schutzbereich; Verletzung

Quelle und Fundstellen

Quelle: https://www.unified-patent-court.org/en/node/717

Referenz: ORD_17447/2024

Aktenzeichen: UPC_CoA_1/2024