AIM Sport Development AG v. TGI Suomi Sport Oy a.o., UPC CFI Helsinki LD, Case no. UPC-CFI_214/2023, UPC-CFI_214/2023
On 29 April 2026, the Helsinki LD upheld AIM’s patent EP 3 295 663 (“EP 663”) as valid but not infringed by TGI’s SVB system. EP 663 protects a method for digitally overlaying one image onto another, for example on virtual advertising billboards.
On validity, the LD found the claimed invention lay in detecting occluding objects based on an intrinsic image property of those objects (e.g. pixel brightness), rather than in identifying the billboard itself by reference to a light or signal signature. On that basis, the LD concluded that the subject matter neither extended beyond the application as filed nor was disclosed or rendered obvious by the prior art, which instead focused on identifying the billboard, rather than the occlusion.
On infringement, TGI’s SVB system detects the billboard using infrared signatures and threshold values that are characteristics of the billboard itself, rather than image properties of occluding objects within the meaning of method claim 12. That feature was central to the claimed invention, and its absence meant that the SVB System did not infringe on a literal construction. On equivalence, the LD found that the SVB system operates in a different technical context to the claimed invention, since it detects billboard pixels using infrared signatures rather than an intrinsic image property of an occluding object. To extend the protection of the patent by equivalence in this way would go beyond the limits of the claims as drafted. Since the equivalence criteria are cumulative, the LD did not consider the remainder of the criteria.
A copy of the decision can be found here.
