2024-10-10 - LD Düsseldorf - Seoul Viosys v. expert - UPC_CFI_483/2023

Was ist diese UPC-Entscheidung?

Zusammenfassung: Companion case to UPC_CFI_363/2023 (Seoul Viosys v. expert, LD Düsseldorf, same day). Same parties, same attacked smartphone LED, same procedural framework — but different divisional patent with a diverging outcome. EP 3 223 320 B1 granted claim 1 requires 'a mesa' (singular) with 'a reflective electrode' arranged on it. The original divisional application disclosed only a 'plurality of mesas' with corresponding 'reflective electrodes' (plural); even Figures 24-26, on which the claimant relied, depict three reflective electrodes on the face of the chip. Drawing on the undisputed general skilled-person knowledge that each mesa is associated with exactly one electrode and cannot carry multiple electrodes, the panel concluded that Figures 24-26 could not disclose a single-mesa configuration — multiple electrodes imply multiple mesas. The result: added matter under Art. 123(2) EPC / Art. 138(1)(c) EPC, patent revoked for the territories of DE, FR, IT, NL; all seven/ten auxiliary requests rejected for retaining the added feature; infringement action dismissed for lack of basis. The panel reiterated the three procedural headnotes from the companion case on multi-defendant proceedings, Rule 25.1 RoP counterclaim-trigger per defendant, and the Rule 118.8 RoP security framework — but declined to address them substantively on the merits since the nullity counterclaim disposed of the case.

Quelle und Fundstellen

Quelle: UPC Case File

Aktenzeichen: UPC_CFI_483/2023