SONN Patentanwälte – IP Attorneys

  1. UPC Local Division: Interpretation, Infringement (Pharmaceutical Formulation)

    The independent product claim protects a pharmaceutical formulation of the anti-IgE antibody rhuMAb E25, characterized by the formulation comprising approximately 150 g/L of the anti-IgE antibody in 0.02 M histidine, 0.2 M arginine-HCl, 0.04% polysorbate 20, at pH 6. A person skilled in the art understands...

  2. UPC Local Division: Interpretation, Validity

    The patent in suit concerns an invention in the field of communication systems and relates, in particular, to high-frequency transmitters used in such systems. The purpose of the patent in suit is to provide a programmable hybrid transmitter that combines the advantages of cartesian-based transmitters...

  3. UPC Board of Appeal: Interpretation, Infringement

    The patent in suit protects an avalanche transceiver in which, among other things, a control unit is provided to drive a loudspeaker to output a voice message depending on an event, with the loudspeaker also being configured to output a tone signal. Furthermore, the control unit is designed to drive...

  4. UPC Court of Appeal: Claim interpretation

    The appellant appeals against a decision dismissing an application for provisional measures. The patent in suit protects an electronic label system for displaying information, in particular price information. The Court of First Instance was not sufficiently convinced that the accused products infringe...

  5. UPC Court of Appeal: Provisional measure and interpretation

    The appellant appeals against a dismissal order of the Court of First Instance on an application for a preliminary injunction. The patent in dispute protects an electronic label system for displaying information, in particular price information. The Court of First Instance was not satisfied with...

  6. UPC Court of Appeal: Interpretation in accordance with Article 69 EPC

    The Court of Appeal states that the interpretation has to be done according to Art 69 EPC and the corresponding protocol: The patent claim is not only the starting point, but the decisive basis under Art 69 EPC in conjunction with the Protocol on the Interpretation of Art 69 EPC for determining the...

  7. No interpretation of claim features clear by themselves in the light of the description

    The principle of primacy of the claims seems to exclude the use of the description and drawings for limiting the claims in proceedings before the EPO (in contradiction to patent infringement proceedings before the UPC or national courts) if an interpretation of the claim in the light of common general...

  8. Negatively defined claim features need to be interpreted narrowly when examining novelty

    When examining novelty, the normal rule of claim interpretation of reading a feature specified in a claim in its broadest technically meaningful sense corresponds to determining the broadest scope encompassed by the subject-matter being claimed according to a technically...

  9. Interpretation of claims in the light of the description

    According to established case law of the Board of Appeal, Art 69 (1) EPC and the Protocol on its Interpretation refer to the “scope of protection” granted by the European patent or the European patent application. This "scope of protection" is of importance especially in patent infringement proceedings....
Top