2026-05-08 - LD Munich - Maxell v. Samsung - UPC_CFI_82/2025
- Aktenzeichen:
- UPC_CFI_82/2025
- Datum:
- Spruchkörper:
- Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division
- Art:
- Decision
- Parteien:
- Maxell Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics GmbH
Kernaussage: The Munich Local Division revoked EP 2 579 587 in its entirety and dismissed the infringement action that depended on it.
2026-05-08 - LD Munich - Maxell
v.
Samsung - UPC_CFI_82/2025
notable
The Munich Local Division revoked EP 2 579 587 in its entirety and dismissed the infringement action that depended on it. Claim 1 as granted lacks novelty over a single prior-art document: the two connection-confirmation procedures it describes, a bus-reset event on one interface and an identification request on the other, together disclose the claimed dual confirmation, and the Court rejected the argument that an automatic network mechanism falls outside a claim which contains no limitation excluding one. Both auxiliary requests failed under Article 123(2) EPC — the first because simultaneous receipt of video information over both interfaces is nowhere disclosed in the application as filed, the second because the application discloses the confirmation message only for one specific named function and generalising it to functions at large is an inadmissible extension, the same defect that afflicts granted claim 7. Having found the patent invalid the Court did not reach infringement, and it left the remaining validity attacks and the Article 52(2)(d) EPC objection undecided.
Nichtigkeitsgründe
Art. 138 EPCNovelty
Patent invalid (this ground)Art. 54 EPC · Art. 138(1)(a) EPC
“Claim 1 as granted was held not novel over D1 (US 2004/0151189 A1, Ohkita). The Court found every feature disclosed, including the two connection confirmations and the making available of a function using both interfaces, and revoked the patent on that ground.”
Added Matter
Patent invalid (this ground)Art. 123(2) EPC · Art. 138(1)(c) EPC
“Auxiliary request 1 was held to extend beyond the application as filed because simultaneous receipt of video information over both interfaces is not directly and unambiguously disclosed. Auxiliary request 2, and granted claim 7 in the same wording, generalise a message disclosed only for the playback-position function to functions at large, which is an inadmissible extension under Article 123(2) EPC.”