Mechanical Claims at the UPC: Context Is Key (UPC_CoA_789/2025, UPC_CoA_813/2025)
UPC Case Law | 17.08.2026
Court docket: Court of Appeal, Order of 06.03.2026
UPC_CoA_789/2025, UPC_CoA_813/2025 [EP 3 119 235]
Parties: Dyson v. Dreame
Contributor: Richard Smith
Headnote
1. While the function of a structural element must be considered when interpreting a claim feature relating to such an element, the interpretation must likewise take into account the physical and spatial configuration of the elements as taught by the patent.
2. The requirement to limit an injunction to the specific infringing acts which the infringer has committed cannot be derived from Art. 62(1) and Art. 25(a) UPCA. As a general rule, the fact that a party has infringed the patent is sufficient to establish a risk of further infringement through other acts of use, including infringing acts which it had not previously committed.
Relevance of the decision
This order of the Court of Appeal concerning an application for provisional measures provides a nice illustration of how the UPC approaches claim interpretation for mechanical inventions.
The current approach to claim construction is that set out in NanoString v 10x Genomics (UPC_CoA_335/2023), namely, that the interpretation of a patent claim does not depend solely on the strict, literal meaning of the wording used. Rather, the description and the drawings must always be used as explanatory aids in interpreting the patent claim and not merely to resolve any ambiguities.
Claim 1 of the patent in suit requires that a slot be formed by an “overlap” of a first end of the wall and a second end of the wall. Whether wall ends overlap with each other depends on the viewpoint adopted, and crucially this is not specified in claim 1. The defendant claimed that the overlap must be determined from a radial viewpoint, and therefore that their products did not infringe. The CoA concluded that, in the context of the patent, the relevant viewpoint was specifically “generally perpendicular to the outer surface of the first end of the wall”. This conclusion was reached by the CoA based on an analysis of the function of the overlap within the claim read as a whole, and interpreted in light of the description and drawings. The stated purpose of the overlap was to achieve a certain fluid flow, and this fluid flow was linked to overlap in this specific direction, the claim was construed as requiring an overlap in the same direction (see r.31-33).
On the other hand, the CoA cautioned against placing too much emphasis on the function of a claimed feature. In particular, whilst the function of an element must be considered when interpreting a claim feature, the physical and spatial configurations of the elements must also be taken into account (see r.35).
The CoA also ruled that the scope of an injunction need not be limited to the specific infringing acts already committed – the fact that a party has already committed one infringing act is sufficient to establish a risk of further infringement (r.60).