UPC_CFI_173/2024, UPC_CFI_424/2024: LD Hamburg guides on assessing intermediate generalizations and technical fields of prior-art documents, generally in line with EPO practice

UPC Case Law | 21.08.2025

Court docket: LD Hamburg, decision of 10.07.2025 - CFI 173/2024; CFI 424/2024 [EP 2 642 632]
Parties: Nera Innovations Limited v. Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., et al.

Contributor: Danche Spirkoska Jovanov

Headnote

  1. Ist der eigentliche Kern der Hilfsanträge zur hilfsweisen Aufrechterhaltung des Patents nach R. 30 VerfO klein, ist die gegnerische Partei nicht vor unzumutbare Herausforderungen in Bezug auf ihren Vortrag gestellt, selbst wenn die Anzahl der Hilfsanträge recht hoch ist, Regel 30.1 lit. c) VerfO.

  2. Eine unzulässige Änderung im Sinne einer Zwischenverallgemeinerung liegt vor, wenn ein Begriff im Anspruchswortlaut fallen gelassen worden ist, der in der der beantragten Fassung noch enthalten war, Art. 123 Abs. 2 und 3 EPÜ.

  3. Hat eine Entgegenhaltung eine vergleichbare Funktionsweise, doch ein unterschiedliches Anwendungsfeld (Einstellung der Resonanzfrequenz einer Antennenvorrichtung in einem Empfänger für die Nahfeldkommunikation) im Vergleich zum anspruchsgemäßen System (Aufbau und Herstellung eines Leistungsempfängers zum drahtlosen Laden), handelt es sich um kein Dokument aus dem Stand der Technik, das die Fachperson bei der Suche nach der Lösung der Aufgabe des Klagepatents heranziehen würde, Art. 54 und 56 EPÜ.

Relevance of the decision

In decision Nera Innovations Ltd. vs. Xiaomi Communications Co. Ltd. et al., the LD Hamburg provides further guidance on assessment of impermissible intermediate generalisations at the UPC and relevance of prior-art documents belonging to different technical field than the patent. 

The patent relates to a wireless power receiver for wirelessly receiving power. The parties were in dispute regarding the interpretation of the feature “receiving space” (i.e. “the substrate (100) has a receiving space formed therein for the connecting unit (300)”). The plaintiff argued that it is irrelevant whether the receiving space is limited to one of its sides or not. The court discussed principles of patent interpretation (B.IV.1), reaffirming that the description and the drawings must always be used as explanatory aids for claims. Elaborating that the core of the invention is the formation of the receiving space in the substrate in order to be able to limit the thickness of the power receiver to the thickness of the connection unit, the court held that contrary to the plaintiff’s view, the receiving space is a complete recess for the connecting unit (B.IV.7.c)). 

Regarding added subject-matter (Article 123(2) EPC), the court based on this interpretation of “receiving space”,  held that in its granted version, the claimed feature “receiving space” is broader than in the original version in that it merely requires that a receiving space for the connection unit is formed in the substrate, without the limitation to a complete recess for the connection unit.  This was considered to represent an impermissible intermediate generalization. This seems to be in accordance with the EPO practice of assessing an impermissible intermediate generalization. As an interim result, the court found that the patent is to be maintained in the version of auxiliary requests 1 and 2.

Turning to novelty and document D5, the court at first elaborated that this document is not a prior-art document which a person skilled in the art would refer to when searching for a solution to the problem of the patent in suit (C.II.6.). The court then discussed that it is not absolutely necessary for a prior art document to address the same problem as the patent in suit in order to be prejudicial to novelty, however, the court then indicated that the completely divergent problem of D5 prevents the skilled person from referring to this document (C.II.6.b)). While this discussion of the technical problem addressed by D5 when assessing novelty may come as unexpected, it may be seen as an introduction to the reasoning of the court regarding inventive step. The defendants argued that the solution of the patent would be obvious starting from D5 in combination with D6. The court did not follow this, again accentuating, by referring to the preceding elaborations, that the completely diverging task of D5 prevents the skilled person from considering this prior-art document as a starting point (C.II.7.bb)). This approach of the court of assessing suitability of a document to qualify as a closest prior-art appears to be in accordance with the EPO’s practice of considering the closest prior-art to generally correspond to similar use and to require the minimum of structural and functional modifications to arrive at the claimed invention.  

back