Inficon GmbH v. Elitech Technology, Inc & Elitech UK Ltd., UPC CFI Düsseldorf Local Division, 6 October 2026, Case nos. UPC_CFI_137/2025 & UPC_CFI_512/2025
This decision relates to an infringement action and counterclaim for revocation based on EP 3 567 356 relating to a ‘sniffing leak detector’ for the detection of gas leaks.
The Court
The Court accepted the defendants’ definition of the skilled person and discusses the patent. The Court construes the claim and based on the examples in the patent rejects a limited interpretation of the claim.
The Defendants’ added matter arguments are rejected:
“The assessment of whether there is added matter is a question of law to be decided on the basis of the facts brought forward by the parties. The facts are the relevant claims and the application as filed. Since the test is whether the relevant claims have basis in the application as a whole, the Court is allowed to look at the entire document (CoA, decision of 25 November 2025, UPC_CoA_528/2024).”
The court further rejected the Defendants’ arguments regarding novelty and inventive step.
With respect to inventive step, the Court states:
“The skilled person has no inventive skills and no imagination and requires a pointer or motivation that, starting from a realistic starting point, directs it to implement a next step in the direction of the claimed invention. As a general rule, a claimed solution must be considered not inventive / obvious when the skilled person would take the next step prompted by the pointer or as a matter of routine, and arrive at the claimed invention. If there is no pointer to combine a reasonable starting point with another document, a motivation to take the next step in the direction of the invention cannot be derived from the content of such a combination document itself. Failing a motivation for the skilled person to consult a document it will not become aware of its content, and it cannot be concluded that the skilled person would implement the missing feature disclosed therein.”
The Court concludes that the patent is not infringed as the Claimant failed to establish that the buffer chamber of the attacked embodiment permits to homogeneously mix gas drawn into the buffer chamber with the remaining gas.
A copy of the Decision can be read here.
