REGISTER now: Visser ai webinar - BEYOND THE HYPE: AI IN PATENT PROSECUTION
​

Prosecution history in claim interpretation at the EPO

​
Darren Smyth
​
June 10, 2026
Additional information
Chevron icon
Info
Tags
UPC
Claim interpretation
Table of contents
Chevron icon
Table of contents
  • Toc Heading
  • Toc Heading

Agathon AG v Intercom SRL, Knarr Vertriebs GmbH

Milan Local Division Decision of 5 May 20261

A recurring question at the UPC is the degree, if any, to which prosecution history can be relevant to the interpretation of claim scope.  Prosecution history is not among the means of claim interpretation enumerated in the leading Court of Appeal decisions on the topic (10x Genomics v Nanostring,2 Amgen v Sanofi,3 Meril v Edwards4) and first instance decisions have adopted various approaches in deciding whether the prosecution history should be consulted at all, and if so what weight should be attached to it. However, the Court of Appeal has indicated that applicant assertions during the grant proceedings can be seen as in indication of the view of the person skilled in the art at the filing date (Alexion v Amgen,5 confirmed in Philips v Belkin6)

This case related to alleged infringement of EP2363263, relating to a tool for injection moulding.  A key issue was the interpretation of feature 1.9 of claim 1 “the second rolling body row (16) abuts an encircling edge (18) concluding the circularly cylindrical surface (17) of the bolt (8)”, and in particular the term “abuts”.  During prosecution before the EPO the patentee had argued that it was essential that the second rolling body row abuts the edge, and the defendants argued that the claim interpretation being argued by the claimant before the UPC was inconsistent with this position.

The LD Milan, referring to the Court of Appeal caselaw, stated “Although statements made by the patent proprietor during examination proceedings before the EPO are not binding, they may nevertheless provide further guidance on interpretation as they reflect the possible opinion of the person skilled in the art.”  While the court primarily interpreted feature 1.9 on the basis of the description of the patent, construing it in the narrower manner contended for by the defendants and rejecting the broader interpretation advanced by the patentee, the prosecution statement was considered to “further confirm the correctness of the interpretation hereby adopted by the Court”.

Ultimately, the patent was found valid in an amended form according to Auxiliary Request 1 submitted in the proceedings, but not infringed by the defendants’ products.

The “indication of the view of the person skilled in the art” is a rather low weight of value to be attached to statements during the grant proceedings, and it seems unlikely that prosecution history will be decisive in UPC cases.

‍

[1] https://www.unifiedpatentcourt.org/en/node/183254

[2] https://www.unifiedpatentcourt.org/en/node/576

[3] https://www.unifiedpatentcourt.org/en/node/159788

[4] https://www.unifiedpatentcourt.org/en/node/159797

[5] https://www.unifiedpatentcourt.org/en/node/1366

[6] https://www.unifiedpatentcourt.org/en/node/149310

‍

Recent Case Reports

See all Case Reports

Invalidity of juicer patent upheld on appeal
03 November 2026
The Court of Appeal upheld the invalidity of Hurom’s juicer patent for lack of inventive step, while clarifying the admissibility requirements for patent amendments and the use of the unamended description when construing amended claims. It also confirmed the UPC’s jurisdiction over infringement in Poland despite Poland not being a UPCA Contracting Member State, but found that Hurom had failed to establish infringement under Polish law.
​
Evidence preservation doesn’t stretch to interrogation
03 November 2026
The Court of Appeal confirmed that evidence-preservation orders may be granted ex parte where there is a demonstrable risk that evidence could be destroyed or become unavailable, and that such orders may extend to relevant commercial and promotional documents. However, Art. 60 UPCA does not permit a bailiff or expert to question the defendant’s personnel on substantive technical matters, which must instead be handled under the Court’s control.
​
UPC Court of Appeal clarifies claim construction, the role of party experts, and provisional measures in direct-competition cases
03 November 2026
The CoA’s decision of 30 April 2025 in Insulet v EOFlow provides important guidance on claim construction, the role of party-appointed experts and the requirements for provisional injunctions.
​