A decision that is very plaintiff-friendly on infringement, costs, and validity (in that order).
Context:
- Many patent cases turn on claim construction, sometimes also in the form of a squeeze (valid but not infringed in one case, infringed but invalid in another). That is why it is important to understand a court’s claim construction principles and tendencies.
- The sequential U.S. approach, where disputes over the interpretation of claim elements are resolved through a written ruling (Markman) and then court’s written interpretation is then mapped, is not necessary in Europe as there are no juries involved. However, the net effect is that plaintiffs regularly prevail on litigation-driven (“purposive”) reads in Europe that would be a harder sell in the U.S., except maybe under the Doctrine of Equivalents (DOE).
- That said, there are significant differences between how far judges in Europe are prepared to stray from the plain and ordinary meaning of claim terms.
To Read The Full Story
Continue reading your article with a Membership
Court and counsel
Panel: Presiding Judge Prof. Peter Tochtermann, Judge-rapporteur Tobias Sender (this is probably his first final judgment as judge-rapporteur), Judge András Kupecz (August 30, 2024 ip fray interview), and Technically Qualified Judge Dr. Stefan Wilhelm.
Counsel for prevailing plaintiff Trumpf: Gleiss Lutz (a firm that has offices in many German cities and beyond Germany, but is originally from Stuttgart, the region in which Trumpf is based) Dr. Matthias Sonntag, Dr. Benedikt Burger, and Mischa Krumm; as well as Witte Weller & Partner patent attorney Dr. Andreas Eisele.
Counsel for defendant and soon-to-be appellant IPG: Peterreins Schley’s Dr. Frank Peterreins.