- in European Union
- in European Union
- within Transport and Privacy topic(s)
1. Key takeaways
For the objective elements of indirect infringement, it is not necessary that both components of the patent claim do exist (Art. 26 UPCA).
Where a patent claim protects a two-component product, the objective elements of indirect infringement are satisfied if the accused component is designed to cooperate with a second component configured in accordance with the invention. Whether such a second component actually exists, only becomes relevant at the level of the subjective requirements for indirect infringement.
All features mentioned in a patent claim generally are essential elements of the invention in the context of indirect infringement under Art. 26 UPCA.
It is irrelevant whether the features appear in the preamble or the characterizing portion, or whether they distinguish the invention from the prior art.
The assessment of exhaustion (Art. 29 UPCA) depends on the specific asserted claim combination..
If a replaceable wear part embodies a key technical effect of the asserted claim combination, its replacement constitutes an impermissible “re-making” of the invention, not a permissible repair. Whether the key technical effect is embodied must be assessed based on the asserted claim, which must not necessarily be the main claim, but can also be a dependent claim.
The UPCA applies to the entire duration of an ongoing infringement, including acts committed before the UPCA’s entry into force on June 1, 2023.
A party may invoke more favorable national law for pre-UPCA acts but bears the burden of arguing it. A withdrawn opt-out only affects the court’s jurisdiction, not the applicable substantive law.
Claim construction must be based on the claim language, not limited to preferred embodiments in the description. Functional requirements define the scope, not optional features.
The Court found that features like a perceptible “snap-in” or specific angles for walls, which were mentioned in the description but not in the claims, were not required to find infringement.
2. Division
LD Düsseldorf
3. UPC number
UPC_CFI_779/2024
4. Type of proceedings
Main infringement action
5. Parties
Claimant: Brita SE
Defendant: Wessper Sp. z o.o.
6. Patent(s)
EP 1 748 830 B1
7. Jurisdictions
UPC
8. Body of legislation / Rules
Art. 26 UPCA, Art. 27 UPCA, Art. 29 UPCA, Art. 67 UPCA, Art. 68 UPCA, Art. 82 UPCA R. 19 RoP, R. 265 RoP, R. 354 RoP
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
[View Source]
