The UPC has considered infringement by equivalents a few times. Here, it declined to opine on a specific test, noting that any test requires functional equivalence as a prerequisite, which was lacking in the case.
Jozef Frans Nelissen v OrthoApnea S.L., Vivisol B BV (UPC_CFI_376/2023) Decision of 17 January 2025[1] (ORD_598478/2023) One of the early evidence preservation orders from the UPC was granted by the Brussels Local Division to seize samples of a product (the “NOA”) at a symposium at which it was expected to be exhibited.[2] This order was carried out, and the appointed expert sub...
This is a really interesting decision from the UPC finding infringement by equivalent means, and suggesting a 4 stage test by which equivalents should be assessed. We shall see if it is adopted more widely.
https://eip.com/uk/latest/article/upc_finds_patent_infringed_by_equivalence/
Plant-e v Arkyne UPC_CFI_239/2023 Decision of 22 November 2024 (ORD_598516/2023 [infringement] ORD_598513/2023 [counterclaim for revocation]) The first claimant Plant-e Knowledge B.V. is proprietor of EP2137782, and the second claimant Plant-e B.V. is its licensee. The patent relates to a method of converting light into electricity by means of a reactor incorporating a living plant – ...
Osna.FM
Darren Smyth (he/him)