2026-04-29 - LD Helsinki - Supponor et al. v. Aim Sport Development - UPC_CFI_403/2025
- Aktenzeichen:
- UPC_CFI_403/2025
- Datum:
- Spruchkörper:
- Court of First Instance - Helsinki (FI) Local Division
- Art:
- Decision
- Parteien:
- Supponor España SL, Supponor SASU, TGI Sport Virtual UK Limited, Supponor Oy, Supponor Italia SRL, Supponor Limited v. AIM SPORT VISION AG, AIM Sport Development AG
Kernaussage: The Helsinki LD held that EP 3 295 663 (digital overlay of moving advertising on LED billboards) is valid but not infringed by TGI's SVB System.
2026-04-29 - LD Helsinki - Supponor et al.
v.
Aim Sport Development - UPC_CFI_403/2025
landmark
The Helsinki LD held that EP 3 295 663 (digital overlay of moving advertising on LED billboards) is valid but not infringed by TGI's SVB System. On validity, the Court rejected TGI's added-matter, novelty and inventive-step attacks, finding that feature 12.5 — detection of an occluding object based on an image property describing an intrinsic characteristic of that object — is neither implicitly disclosed nor obvious from Rantalainen, Nevatie or Gupta, because all three teach detection of the billboard rather than of the occluding object (a paradigm shift). On infringement, the Court held that the SVB System relies on an artificial billboard signature (IR1 > T1 and IR1/IR2 > T3) and so does not literally satisfy feature 12.5; on equivalence, the Court — absent CoA case law — adopted the four-step test from LD The Hague (UPC_CFI_239/2023) on legal-certainty grounds, held the criteria cumulative, and dismissed equivalence at the technical-equivalence prong without reaching the others. The judgment also articulates a substantiation rule: a court must respond to a party's allegation only insofar as the party has presented substantiated arguments (added-matter analysis confined to claim 5 alone, the only feature TGI substantiated).
Nichtigkeitsgründe
Art. 138 EPCNovelty
Patent survived (this ground)Art. 54 EPC · Art. 138(1)(a) EPC
“Claim 12 found novel over both Rantalainen (WO 2013/132032 A1) and Nevatie (WO 2013/186278 A1): neither discloses features 12.1.1.2 (moving image on display device), 12.3.1 (radiation distinction) or 12.5 (detect occluding object via its intrinsic image property) [68]-[95].”
Inventive Step
Patent survived (this ground)Art. 56 EPC · Art. 138(1)(a) EPC
“Claim 12 inventive starting from Rantalainen + Nevatie/CGK/HLCC8-11 [96]-[117]; from Nevatie + Rantalainen [118]-[127]; and from Gupta + Rantalainen [128]-[135]. Feature 12.5 represents a paradigm shift (detect occluding object vs. detect billboard) for which the prior art contains no pointer; replacing IR LEDs with RGB LEDs would be counterproductive [123].”
Added Matter
Patent survived (this ground)Art. 123(2) EPC · Art. 138(1)(c) EPC
“TGI's only substantiated added-matter ground (combination of claim 5 with claim 1 in WO'827) was rejected: the two implicit detection criteria envisaged for original claim 5+1 remained equally applicable to the amended claim, so no added matter [56]-[67]; substantiation rule limited the analysis to claim 5 [63].”