Notice: Compilation with focus on relevant decisions of EPO (inkl. Large symptoms/boa), Unit patent court (UPC), Federal Court of Justice/Federal Patent Court as well as U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
European Patent Office (EPO)
1) G 1/23 („Solar cell“)
- CERTIFICATE: G 1/23
- Date: 2. July 2025
- panel: Große Beschwerdekammer
- Facts: Template for the question, whether one placed on the market before the filing date (ggf. complex/non-reproducible) For this reason alone, the product does not count as state of the art, because its composition/internal structure could not be analyzed/reproduced before the filing date without unreasonable effort.
- Exit: Question answered in the negative; A product placed on the market is generally state of the art – reproducibility is not a legal requirement.
- Bedeutung: Extensive clarification of prior use/“on sale” constellations; makes it easier to rely on product prior use and affects novelty/type. 54(2) EPC off.
2) T 1519/23 (Max Planck Society)
- CERTIFICATE: T 1519/23
- Date: 7. July 2025
- panel: Technical Board of Appeal 3.2.01
- Facts: Rejection of a registration for magnetically actuated, „untethered“ Formkörpern; Novelty and inventive step compared to, among other things,. D15.
- Exit: Main application not new; first request for help (u.a. „untethered“ + several types of locomotion) inventive → repeal and Referral back for patent grant based on the 1. auxiliary request.
- Bedeutung: Specifies the novelty comparison between “tethered”/“untethered” versions and confirms inventive activity in functionally expanded movement modes.
Unit patent court (UPC)
3) Fujifilm ./. Kodak – UK related omission
- CERTIFICATE: UPC_CFI_365/2023 (LD Mannheim)
- Date: 18. July 2025 (published 25. July 2025)
- Patent: EP 3 511 174
- Facts: Claim for infringement; Question of the territorial scope of the omission, insbesondere regarding UK after Brexit.
- Exit: First UPC cease and desist order also effective for UK violations (no jurisdiction for UK‑Emptiness).
- Bedeutung: Fundamental decision on the “long-arm jurisdiction” of the UPC Inlandsbezug + EP(UK) – pioneering legal enforcement against UK distribution chains.
4) Saisie/Inspection – Scope of the order
- CERTIFICATE: UPC_CFI_636/2025 (LD Mannheim)
- Date: 25. July 2025
- Facts: enforcement of one Seizure-/inspection order.
- Exit: inspection physically systems/evidence present at the named location limited; no obligation to enable external access.
- Bedeutung: Practical guidelines for securing evidence/inspections in the UPC procedure.
Germany
5) BGH – expansion dowel I
- CERTIFICATE: X ZR 41/23
- Date: 17. July 2025
- Facts: Annulment appeal against EP 2 813 340 (expansion dowel); u.a. executability, invalid extension, Blog.
- Exit: Plaintiff's appeal successful, Cross-appeal unsuccessful; further declaration of invalidity against the lower court (Tenoration s. Verdict).
- Bedeutung: Specifies standards for feasibility/disclosure of mechanical components and permissible claims.
6) BPatG – Rivaroxaban‑Therapie
- CERTIFICATE: 3 NI 11/22 (EP)
- Date: 29. July 2025
- Facts: Action for annulment between pharmaceutical companies EP 1 845 961 (Therapy with rivaroxaban).
- Exit: Annulment of the patent for DE.
- Bedeutung: Relevance for market positions/reimbursements; possible effects on parallel proceedings (Appeal to the BGH possible).
USA – Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Cafc)
7) Colibri Heart Valve LLC ./. Medtronic CoreValve LLC
- CERTIFICATE: 23‑2153
- Date: 18. July 2025
- Facts: Heart valve technology; Jury spoke previously >100 Mio. USD to; Berufung u.a. to injury/DoE/Prosecution‑History‑Estoppel.
- Exit: Verdict of non-infringement; U-turn in the jury verdict.
- Bedeutung: Strengthening objections from prosecution history estoppel/claim interpretation; Signaling effect for medical technology DoE disputes.
8) IGT ./. Zynga
- CERTIFICATE: 23‑2262
- Date: 22. July 2025
- Facts: Interference estoppel as an obstacle to IPR; Question of applicability/waiver.
- Exit: Confirmation, that no interference estoppel ban the IPR examination was available; PTO director was allowed to continue proceedings.
- Bedeutung: Clarifies interaction between Interference‑Estoppel and IPR; Practical relevance for attack strategy before the PTAB.
9) Janssen Pharmaceuticals, INC. ./. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, INC.
- CERTIFICATE: 25‑1228
- Date: 8. July 2025
- Facts: Hatch-Waxman dispute US‑Patent 8,361,906; Objections of lack of inventive step and inadequate description.
- Exit: Partial confirmations/instructions (Details s. Verdict); Referrals/further treatment possible.
- Bedeutung: Notes on Written Description/Obviousness in pharmaceutical cases according to Remand history.
Quick notes (Selection)
- BPatG, 18 The (pat) 55/23 (28.01.2025 – just outside the time window, but practical): Process for automated Stenosis detection as excluded from patent protection Diagnostic procedures (§ 2a Abs. 1 No.. 2 Patgan).
- EPO/BoA – ongoing decisions in the light of G 2/21 (plausibility) – increasing use of the test in 2025 (Statustrend, without individual files).
Practical notes (compact)
- Prior use/market products: nach G 1/23 Reproducibility is not a filter – ensure product-related prior use strategically early on (Evidence, Muster, Analyst).
- UPC range: At EU‑weiten Consider supply chain UK references; Possibility of UPC omission also compared to. EP(UK)-Injury.
- DoE/Estoppel (US): Document claim history; Medtronic shows, that DoE quickly reaches its limits.
- Inspection/Saisie: Adapt evidence strategies to physically available systems.
Leave a Reply