We are pleased to share that our firm Prüfer & Partner together with six of our intellectual property attorneys have been recognized for their outstanding work in patent prosecution and nullity in the newly published 2025 Edition of IAM Patent 1000, one of the world’s leading rankings with regard to patent services providers. We are very proud and honored that our next generation managing partners Dr. Susanne Sonnenhauser and Dr. Christian Gärtner were also listed for the first time.
What the ranking said
Prüfer & Partner
“A reliable firm providing quality patent prosecution advice…appreciated for their responsiveness, cost-effective approach and overall excellent client service.”
Jürgen Feldmeier
“Jürgen Feldmeier is a responsive and highly professional practitioner with a deep understanding of his clients’ technologies. This means he provides careful and accurate opinions, as well as valuable advice on patent applications and portfolio management, and defence strategies that are tailored exactly to his customers’ needs.”
Dr. Dorothea Hofer
“Dorothea Hofer has the ability to understand complex technical matters and provide the appropriate advice. She is a great attorney, capable of dealing with urgent matters through putting together strong teams to tackle important cases.”
Dr. Andreas Oser
“Andreas Oser carefully drafts patent applications and provides helpful advice on handling proceedings at the patent office. He devises cost-efficient strategies, highlighting the risks and challenges of each option, and selecting the most suitable path depending on his clients’ needs.”
Markus Adamczyk
“Markus Adamczyk, a dual-qualified patent attorney and attorney-at-law, sees issues from every angle to dispense valuable holistic counsel. He works seamlessly with his clients to masterfully protect and enforce their rights.”
Dr. Susanne Sonnenhauser
“Susanne Sonnenhauser is adept at working with groundbreaking technologies and companies whose patents are central to their success; unflappable under pressure, she operates with precision and the utmost care at each turn.”
Dr. Christian Gärtner
“Christian Gärtner is an impressive strategist who devotes his practice to achieving meaningful patent protection for his clients. He gets to know their businesses incredibly well and tailors his advice to suit their needs.”
About IAM Patent 1000
The prestigious ranking IAM Patent 1000, published by Globe Business Media Group in London, is commonly regarded as the definitive ‘go-to’ resource for those seeking to identify world-class, private practice patent expertise as well as leading patent service providers. IAM undertook an exhaustive qualitative research project to identify outstanding firms and individuals across multiple jurisdictions. When identifying the leading firms, factors such as depth of knowledge, market presence, and the level of work on which they are typically instructed were all taken into account, as well as positive peer and client feedback.
Before the Paris Local Division, in a case where the defendant had forced an intervener into the proceedings pursuant to Rule 316A RoP (forced intervention), the intervener has obtained a period of one month for filing its Application to Intervene as well as for filing its Statement in Intervention. Contrary to Rule 316.2 RoP, which mentions a “further period” for filing the Statement in Intervention, the Court did not set any such further period.
Incidentally, the intervener’s one-month period for filing its Application to Intervene and its Statement in Intervention expired on March 19, 2024, which is almost identical to the end of the defendant’s three-month period for filing its Statement of Defence (March 18, 2024). The defendant’s Statement of Defence did not include a counterclaim for revocation of the patent.
The Court held that the intervener may not develop claims contrary to those of the party he supports and may not autonomously develop claims and procedural modalities different from those offered to the party it supports. Therefore, since the defendant’s term for filing a counterclaim also applies to the intervener, the intervener is not entitled to pose an own counterclaim after that term has expired. It would appear that, although not expressly stated, the Court considered that, in principle, an own counterclaim of the intervenient is admissible, albeit subject to the defendant’s terms.
In addition, the Court again rejected a request to change the language of the proceedings from French to English even though the language of the patent in question is English and the defendant itself, a French company and the only French party involved, previously and unsuccessfully had requested a change of the language of the proceedings from French to English. This shows that the bar for changing the language is very high.
Case number UPC_CFI_440/2023, order date May 6, 2024
In our view, the Court did not take sufficient account of the situation of the forced intervention. It is already challenging to set up a properly researched counterclaim of revocation within the three months granted to the defendant. To do so within one month could be considered outright impossible, especially as cooperation in a forced intervention cannot be expected. A corresponding obligation for the short term raises constitutional concerns.
Still, the possibility of a separate revocation action remains.
UPC 的首批裁决已经下达，了解 UPC 在广泛讨论的权利要求解释、事实陈述和举证责任以及创造性考虑等问题上的立场将是令人兴奋的。
1. 权利要求解释的介绍以及与欧洲专利局的比较
欧洲专利局的诉讼程序中一直存在争论，即在多大程度上应考虑描述来解释权利要求，以及基本的法律依据（如果有）。
在 T 1473/19 号裁决中，上诉委员会（BoA）得出结论认为，在权利要求的解释和确定权利要求的范围方面，无论是在审查程序中还是在异议程序中，可以依据《欧洲专利公约》第 69 条及其解释议定书第 1 条。此外，尽管根据《欧洲专利公约》第 69 条第 2 句，描述和附图应被用于解释权利要求，但权利要求仍具有优先权，（根据《欧洲专利公约》第 69 条第 1 句，欧洲专利或专利申请的保护范围应由权利要求确定），这为解释权利要求特征设定了限制。
此外还决定，即使权利要求本身是明确的，也可以参考描述来进一步解释权利要求。
然而，由于 “权利要求优先 “原则，在解释权利要求特征时，明确（清晰）的权利要求措辞必须优先于说明，因此只有在权利要求特征不明确时，才有可能参考说明来解释权利要求。
在 T 0169/20 号案件中，委员会认为，《欧洲专利公约》第 84 条的规定，特别是第 84 条第 2 句，以及《欧洲专利公约》第 42 和 43 条的规定，为在评估专利性时的权利要求解释提供了充分的法律依据。《欧洲专利公约》第 69 条仅用于确定保护范围，以审查是否符合《欧洲专利公约》第 123(3)条的规定，以及在侵权诉讼中使用（与 T 1473/19 相反）。委员会进一步得出结论 如果权利要求的措辞本身清晰且技术合理，那么就没有必要也没有理由根据描述对其进行解释。特别是，描述的支持不应被用来限制或修改发明的主题，使其超出技术人员在阅读权利要求的措辞时所能理解的范围，例如排除在相关技术背景下合理且技术上可行的解释”。(下划线为添加）。
总之，尽管欧洲专利局上诉委员会的这两项示范性裁决采用了不同的法律依据（《欧洲专利公约》第 69 条及其议定书第 1 条，以及《欧洲专利公约》第 84 条及《欧洲专利公约》第 42 条和第 43 条相结合），但结果是相似的：权利要求的措辞界定了要求保护的主题，而描述只能用于解释不明确的特征。
现在，UPC 下达了第一批裁定，UPC 在权利要求解释方面的立场引人关注：
在 UPC_CoA_335/2023 号裁决中，统一专利法院（UPC）上诉法庭（CoA）裁定，”根据《欧洲专利公约》第 69 条以及《欧洲专利公约》第 69 条的解释议定书，专利权利要求书不仅是确定欧洲专利保护范围的起点，而且是决定性的依据。(标题 2，第一句）。此外，UPC 的上诉法庭（CoA）还得出了一个重要结论，即 “描述和附图必须始终作为解释专利权利要求的辅助工具，而不仅仅是为了解决专利权利要求中的任何模糊之处。“(下划线强调；裁定理由，5.d) aa)；第 3 段）。这与欧洲专利局上诉委员会的立场不同，委员会认为，只有在权利要求特征不明确的情况下，才有可能通过查阅描述说明来解释权利要求。UPC 的上诉法庭（CoA）进一步指出，权利要求解释的目的是 “将对专利所有人的充分保护与对第三方的充分法律确定性结合起来”。(裁定理由，5.d) aa), 第 6 段）。
在 UPC_CoA_335/2023 号裁决中，上诉法庭认为权利要求 1 的某些特性需要解释，例如 “细胞或组织样本”这一项。这一点实际上与法庭诉讼有关，因为解释这一特征与评估实质性可专利性相关，特别是通过质疑：从细胞或组织中提取但与支持物结合的样本是否可以被视为所要求保护的”细胞或组织样本”？上诉法庭认为，该特征要求将细胞或组织样本理解为仍可识别为细胞或组织的样本。 此外，上诉法庭会还参询了支持这一理解的描述。
总之，UPC 的 上诉法庭采取的立场是，根据《欧洲专利公约》第 69 条以及《欧洲专利公约》第 69 条解释议定书，在解释权利要求时必须始终考虑描述，而不仅仅是在权利要求特征不明确的情况下。
2. 初步禁令中的事实陈述和举证责任
根据《规则》第 205 条及以下各条Rop，临时措施令是通过简易程序（通常也称为初步禁令程序）的方式发布，在该程序中，当事人陈述事实和证据的机会是受限的。迄今为止，欧洲各国关于临时措施程序的国内法和实践都很不相同，即使在德国的实践中也没有统一的方法 [1]。
上诉法庭认为，一方面，举证标准不能定得太高，以避免因延迟而对专利所有人造成无法弥补的损害；另一方面，举证标准也不能定得太低，以防止临时措施令在日后被撤销而对被告造成损害。
根据法规第 211.2 条RoP，可以要求申请人”提供合理的证据，使法院足以确定认为申请人有权根据第 47 条提起诉讼，认为所涉专利是有效的，其权利正在受到侵犯，或者认为这种侵犯即将发生”。
上诉法庭现在认为，这种“足够程度的确定性要求法院至少更有可能认为申请人有权提起诉讼并且专利受到侵犯。 如果法院在权衡可能性后认为该专利更有可能无效，则缺乏足够的确定性。”(裁定的理由，5.a) 第 4 段）。
因此，UPC 的上诉法庭裁定进行 “可能性权衡 “评估。如果专利无效的可能性更大，则初步禁令将失效。这一概念归结为“简单”问题：利被认定为不具有新颖性或不具有创造性的可能性更大？在这种情况下，统一专利法院不应在专利侵权诉讼中授予初步禁令。
因此，该判决为 UPC 提供了一个共同的标准，有别于各国法院之间各种相互冲突的判决。
3. UPC 前的对创造步骤的考虑
在本案（UPC_CoA_335/2023）中，上诉法庭得出的结论是，权利要求1的主题被证明是显而易见的可能性更大。有趣的是，上诉法庭的这一决定推翻了一审法院关于这一部分的相反裁决。
上诉法庭得出这一结论的依据是，相关现有技术文献 D6 与权利要求 1 之间的唯一区别在于，D6 没有公开权利要求1的方法旨在检测细胞或组织样本中的多种分析物这一特征。相反，D6 公开了一种旨在检测 “扩增 DNA 分子”（ASMs）的方法，而这种分子并不存在于细胞或组织样本中，熟练技术人员也不会将其视为专利意义上的细胞或组织样本。因此，新颖性得到了认可。
关于创造性，上诉法庭进一步指出，寻求开发用于检测样品中目标分子的高通量光学多重分析方法的技术人员会考虑 D6，因为该文件公开了一种检测多种 ASMs 的方法。从该文献出发，并考虑到在优先权日内对多重分析技术的需求，技术人员也会考虑将 D6 的方法转移到原位环境中，另一份文献（B30）也证明了这一点。值得注意的是，在论证为什么熟练人员在遇到困难时不会因为成功的可能性不足而不进行试验时，上诉法庭提到了瑞典知识产权局的咨询报告（B10，第 5 页）。
上诉法庭得出结论认为，由于缺乏创造性，争议专利很有可能在案情审理中被证明无效，并裁定没有足够的依据签发初步禁令。
可供参考的信息:
[1] GRUR 2022, 811 – 菲尼克斯电气/哈廷
慕尼黑地区法院：
2022 年 9 月 29 日的裁决，Az. 7 O 4716/22；以及 2022 年 10 月 27 日，Az. 7 O 10295/22:
推定欧洲专利以及欧洲专利的德国部分自其授权公布之日起有效
杜塞尔多夫地方法院：
2022 年 9 月 22 日判决，Az. 4 b O 54/22：
欧洲专利及其德国部分的有效性推定问题
[2] 德国最高法院, BGH – Fulvestrant (X ZR 59/17; 标题注释)
The detailed article is published at JUVE Patent.
Since the introduction of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) in June 2023, a new system for central attacking the validity of and thereby to nullify a European Patent has been introduced. If a European patent of concern is an EU Unitary Patent, or if a classically validated European patent was not opted out from the competence of the UPC, a central revocation action under the UPC now exists in parallel to an opposition before the European Patent Office (EPO). Therefore, the question arises: what are the pros and cons of challenging the validity either before the EPO or before the UPC? The present report provides some guidance and discusses the main advantages and disadvantages of each system – which eventually is a matter of strategic considerations whether and which advantage may prevail – be it costs, timing, speed of proceedings, and possibly other issues.
