UPC_CFI_251/2025

A party that does not file a preliminary objection within the timeframe prescribed by Rule 19.1 RoP is considered under Rule 19.7 RoP to have submitted to the jurisdiction of the UPC and to the competence of the relevant Local Division.

Under Article 69 EPC, the patent claim is the decisive basis for determining protective scope, while the description and drawings must always be used as explanatory aids; the claim is interpreted from the perspective of the skilled person and is neither read solely according to its strict literal wording nor treated as an unrestricted guideline.

For inventive step under Article 56 EPC, the objective problem is established from the claim as a whole, considered in the context of the description and drawings, the technical teaching and the technical effects understood by the skilled person, and the claimed solution is obvious where the skilled person would, rather than merely could, arrive at it from a realistic starting point.

Where auxiliary requests progressively limit the scope of protection, the earlier auxiliary requests may also be obvious when the request limiting the scope furthest is not inventive and the earlier requests contain fewer distinguishing features.

A combination of features cannot be held inventive where each individual distinguishing feature is obvious and the features do not interact functionally to produce an effect beyond a mere juxtaposition or establish a synergistic effect.

For novelty under Article 54(1) EPC, a claimed invention forms part of the state of the art where the skilled person, using common general knowledge, can derive all of its technical features directly and unambiguously from what is already known.