REGISTER now: Sweden Event - A new era for innovation: AI, the UPC and global patent opportunities
​

Prosecution history in claim interpretation at the EPO

​
Darren Smyth
​
June 10, 2026
Info
Tags
UPC
Claim interpretation
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

Court of Appeal affirms interpretation of product-by-process features in claims, and clarifies applicable law pre-June 2023
29 September 2026
The Court of Appeal confirmed that product-by-process features in a product claim limit the claim only where the specified process imparts characteristics that can be achieved solely by that process. It also clarified the law applicable to acts occurring before 1 June 2023, holding that UPC law may apply to ongoing infringement for injunctive relief, whereas damages for acts completed before that date are governed by national law, and that claims for provisional protection remain governed by national law.
​
Appeal reveals tricky deadlines for orders contained in decisions
29 September 2026
The Court of Appeal held that where a “privileged order” under Rule 220(1)(c), such as an order relating to the production of evidence under Article 59 UPCA and Rule 190 RoP, is contained within a decision on the merits, a 15 day appeal deadline for that order applies, separate from the substantive appeal deadline. Appeals challenging such orders after that deadline are inadmissible, and parties cannot circumvent the appeal rules by re-filing substantially the same request in the appeal proceedings.
​
Bringing enforcement proceedings while an appeal is still pending risks liability for defendant’s costs
24 September 2026
The Court of Appeal held that setting aside a first-instance decision granting relief subject to recurring penalties generally has retroactive effect. Any penalty fees already paid will be refunded by the Court. The value of proceedings is determined by the interest of the party that brought the action. This is not changed as a result of an appeal. A claimant bringing enforcement proceedings while an appeal is still pending does so at its own risk and may be liable for the defendant’s costs related to the enforcement proceedings.‍
​