VusionGroup v Hanshow (UPC_CoA_1/2024)
Decision date:
13 May 2024
Osborne Clarke summary
- VusionGroup (formerly known as SES-imagotag) brought an application for provisional measures against Hanshow in the Munich LD for alleged infringement of its EP, relating to the display of information, in particular price information labels in sales areas. VusionGroup alleged that various Hanshow products infringed claims 1 and 3 of the patent in issue. The Munich LD dismissed VusionGroup's application for provisional measures. It was not satisfied to a sufficient degree of certainty that the products infringed the patent.
- The Court of Appeal applied the standard from 10x Genomics v Nanostring for interpretation of the claims of the patent. On the basis of this interpretation, the Court of Appeal held that the Munich LD was right in its conclusions on features 7 and 8.4 of the claim relating to the positioning of the printed circuit board and antenna. The Court of Appeal noted that its interpretation of claim feature 8.4 was based on the wording of the claim, read in light of the description and drawings from the perspective of the skilled person based on their common general knowledge, without having regard to the prosecution history of the patent. The court stated that the parts of the EPO examination file cited by the parties did not shed any new light on its interpretation and therefore the Court of Appeal did not need to address the question of whether the prosecution history can be taken into account when determining the scope of protection of an EP.
- As per the Court of Appeal in 10x Genomics, the court must consider it on the balance of probabilities more likely than not that the patent is infringed to grant a preliminary injunction. On this basis, the Court of Appeal agreed with the Munich LD that the attacked embodiments did not fall within the scope of protection of the patent on the balance of probabilities as not all of the features of the claim had been realised in the product. Therefore, VusionGroup's argument on claim 1 and dependent claim 3 both failed and the Munich LD was right to reject its application for provisional measures.
Issue
Curious about how UPC decisions might impact your business? Have questions about the UPC?
Reach out to our patents team for expert guidance and support.