2024-07-31 - LD Munich - DexCom v. Abbott - UPC_CFI_233/2023
- Aktenzeichen:
- UPC_CFI_233/2023
- Datum:
- Spruchkörper:
- Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division
- Art:
- Proceeding Decision
- Parteien:
- DexCom v. Abbott
Kernaussage: Patent was revoked (all auxiliary requests dismissed), infringement claims were dismissed
2024-07-31 - LD Munich - DexCom
v.
Abbott - UPC_CFI_233/2023
Patent was revoked (all auxiliary requests dismissed), infringement claims were dismissed
Stichwörter
counterclaim for revocation, infringement action
Nichtigkeitsgründe
Art. 138 EPCNovelty
Patent survived (this ground)Art. 54 EPC · Art. 138(1)(a) EPC
“Claim 1 was found NOT to be anticipated by Berman (D12): Berman discloses two types of data transfer (periodic/on-demand) and lists multiple candidate protocols for each, but does not directly and unambiguously require two different protocols for the two transfers. Novelty attack rejected (but the patent fell on inventive step).”
Inventive Step
Patent invalid (this ground)Art. 56 EPC · Art. 138(1)(a) EPC
“Applying the CoA methodology (UPC_CoA_335/2023), the Court held that selecting BLE for broadcast and NFC/RFID for on-demand was an obvious design choice driven by well-known energy-efficiency considerations; auxiliary requests adding connection/pairing features were likewise obvious in view of common general knowledge on NFC-assisted Bluetooth pairing.”