UPC_CFI_180/2025

Decisions and documents (1)

• 2026-03-11procedural

  Klägerinnen:

  BFexaQC AG; ParTec AG

  Beklagte:

  NVIDIA Corporation; NVIDIA GmbH

  Statements made by a patent applicant during the grant procedure do not constitute material for the interpretation of the granted patent within the meaning of Art 69(1) EPC, nor are such statements by the applicant in the grant procedure binding for the claim construction in subsequent infringement or revocation proceedings. However, they may provide an indication of how a person skilled in the art would understand the technical teaching of the granted patent on the priority date, since the applicant himself usually has the best understanding of his invention and the associated technical knowledge (continuation of CoA, Order of 20 December 2024, 402/2024 - Alexion v Samsung Bioepis). It does not constitute an amendment to the claim within the meaning of Rule 263 of the RoP if, according to the Defendant's Statement of Defence, the attacked product differs in technical details from that described by the Claimant in the Statement of Claim and the Claimant bases the allegation of infringement in the Reply to the Statement of Defence on the technical functioning described by the Defendant, as long as the infringement claim continues to relate to the generally described product and its attacked function. It is admissible in procedural terms for the Defendant to file a counterclaim for revocation in response to an infringement action, subject to the condition subsequent that the infringement action is unsuccessful. If this condition is met because the patent at issue is not infringed regardless of its validity, no decision is required on the counterclaim for revocation.

  🔒 Unlock Official PDF