UPC CFI 459/2023 – Tridonic GmbH & Co. KG v CUPOWER Shenzhen Xiezhen Electronics Co, Ltd and CUPOWER Europe GmbH

Expert Commentary

Full Decision Text

Local Division Düsseldorf UPC CFI 459/2023 Decision of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court pronounced on March 7, 2025 concerning EP 2 011 218 B1 GUIDING PRINCIPLES: New attacks on validity that are only made during the oral proceedings are not to be taken into account. Strategic tactics aimed at achieving surprise effects are alien to the Rules of Procedure. KEYWORDS: Dismissal of late submissions, amendment of the action 2 PLAINTIFF: Tridonic GmbH & Co. KG, Färbergasse 15, 6851 Dornbirn, Austria represented by: Attorney Dr. Markus B. Bölling and Patent Attorney Dr. Christian Kraeh, Mitscherlich Patent- und Rechtsanwälte PartGmbB, Karlstraße 7, 80333 Munich, Germany electronic delivery address: markus.boelling@mitscherlich.de DEFENDANT: 1. CUPOWER Shenzhen Xiezhen Electronics Co, Ltd Floor 2, Building E Taohuayuan Smart & Innovation Park, Bao'an District, Shenzhen, 518000 People's Republic of China 2. CUPOWER Europe GmbH, Ahornweg 5a, 58675 Hemer, Germany represented by: Attorney Eva Geschke, Attorney Jan-Caspar Mai- ers, Wildanger Kehrwald Graf. v. Schwerin & Partner mbB Rechtsanwälte, Couvenstraße 8, 40211 Düsseldorf electronic delivery address: maiers@wildanger.eu Contributing: Patent attorney Renate Weisse, Patentanwaltskanzlei Weisse, Bleibtreustraße 38, 10623 Berlin STREITPATENT: European Patent No. EP 2 011 218 B1 Panel/Chamber: Panel of the Düsseldorf Local Division Participating judges: The decision is pronounced with the participation of the legally qualified Judge Dr. Thom as Judge Rapporteur, Presiding Judge Klepsch, the legally qualified Judge Agergaard and the technically qualified Judge Schober. Language of the proceedings: German Subject matter: Infringement action and counterclaim for revocation 3 Oral hearing: January 17, 2025 Brief description of the facts: The plaintiff is the owner of European patent 2 011 218 (Exhibit K2; hereinafter: patent in dispute), which was filed as an international application on April 20, 2007, claiming the priority of German patent application 10 2006 018 576 dated April 21, 2006. Publication of the patent grant by the European Patent Office took place on September 21, 2016. The patent in dispute is in force. The patent in suit relates to a boost converter power factor correction circuit (boost PFC). Claims 7 to 10 in dispute here read as follows. Claim 7 "Boost power factor correction (boost PFC) circuit, the circuit a freewheeling diode (D1), a charging coil (L1) connected in series with the freewheeling diode (D1), a switch (M1), a charging capacitor (C1) and an electronic control and/or regulating unit, wherein the charging capacitor (C1) is charged by the controlled switch (M1) with a discharge current created by the charging coil (L1), wherein the switch (M1) can be switched on and off by the electronic control and/or regulating unit, characterized in that that the electronic control and/or regulation unit is connected to an input - directly or indirectly detects the current through the switch (M1) during periods in which the switch (M1) is closed, and - detects a further operating parameter of the boost PFC circuit in time durations in which the switch (M1) is open, the detected further operating parameter being the zero crossing of the current flowing through the charging coil (L1), and that the circuit further comprises a decoupling element for decoupling the detection of the switching current and detection of the zero crossing of the current flowing through the charging coil (L1)." Claim 8 Circuit according to claim 7, wherein the zero crossing of the current flowing through the charging coil (L1) is detected electrically isolated, in particular inductively. Claim 9 Circuit according to claim 7 or 8, wherein the control and regulating unit switches the switch (M1) on again at the time of zero passage of the current through the charging coil (L1). Claim 10 Circuit according to any one of claims 7-9, wherein the current through the switch (M1) or a variable representative thereof is compared with a threshold value and the switch (M1) is switched off again as soon as the threshold value is reached or exceeded. 4 Defendant 1) is a Chinese company with its registered office in Shenzhen. Defendant 2) is a German GmbH with its registered office in Hemer. Both defendants are jointly stated under "Headquarters" on the website www.cupower.com. The defendants offer and in any event defendant 2) sells in Germany and France LED drivers a boost PFC circuit, in particular drivers with the type designation ID LCCB 100/230/250-700 NFC FV 1 (hereinafter: the attacked embodiment; cf. Exhibits K9, K10). The attacked embodiment has a boost PFC circuit with the following structure (see Exhibit K 13): The attacked embodiment comprises the following components: Charging coil (L4), freewheeling diode (D6), charging capacitor (EC1), transistor (Q1), current measuring resistor (R10A/B/C/D) and capacitor (C3). The arrangement and wiring of the above components and the connection of both the con- 5 densator (C3) as well as the current measuring resistor (R10A/B/C/D) with pin 1 of the ASIC (U1) corresponds to the following figure, which comes from the application description of the manufacturer Silergy for the ASIC with the type designation SY5072 controlling the boost PFC of the attacked embodiment (Exhibit K 12, Figure 1), whereby the colored references were added by the plaintiff. A DC voltage or a rectified AC voltage is applied to the charging coil (L4) connected to the input of the boost PFC circuit. This charging coil (L4) is connected on the output side both to the freewheeling diode (D6) and, via the transistor (Q1) serving as a switch, to the current measuring resistor (R10A/B/C/D). The output of the freewheeling diode (D6) is connected to a charging capacitor (EC1) connected to ground at a connection point that also marks the output of the boost PFC circuit. The plaintiff has further submitted illustrations of the interconnections of the attacked embodiments as Figures 12, 13 and Figure 14, in which the order of the pins of switch Q1 comprise a slightly different numbering. Figure 12, in which, according to the plaintiff, the dashed line shows the wiring of charging coil L4, freewheeling diode D6, charging capacitor EC1, transistor Q1 and shunt R10A/B/C/D: 6 Figure 13, in which, according to the plaintiff, the dashed line shows the control of transistor Q1 by the ASIC (U1). Figure 14 shows the connections of pin 1 of the ASIC U1 to the capacitor C3 on the one hand and to a connection point between the transistor Q1 and the current measuring resistor R10A/B/C/D on the other. On the other side (not shown), capacitor C3 is connected to a connection point between charging coil L4 and freewheeling diode D6. 7 The plaintiff measured both voltage and current waveforms during operation of the boost PFC circuit of the attacked embodiment. The following three figures (Figures 15, 16 and 17) are taken from Exhibit K11 and have been edited by the plaintiff by highlighting ranges of the closed and open switch Q1. Figure 15: 8 The current flowing through the closed switch Q1 charges the charging coil L4 (the coil current represented by the pink curve "I L4" increases linearly). The voltage at the current measuring resistor (R10A/B/C/D) also increases linearly due to the increasing current flowing through switch Q1 (dark blue curve "R10"). Due to the connection between the current measuring resistor R10A/B/C/D and pin 1 of the ASIC (U1), the measurement signal representing the current flow is present at the measurement input pin 1 of the ASIC (U1) (green curve "U1 1"). The voltage rise at pin 1 essentially corresponds to that at the current measuring resistor (see the parallel rise of the dark blue curve "R10" and the green curve "U1 1"). Figure 16: If the current flowing through switch Q1 (represented by the dark blue curve "R10") reaches a certain value, the ASIC U1 interrupts the voltage signal applied to the gate of the switch Q1 and thus opens the switch Q1. The charging coil L4 discharges via the now conducting freewheeling diode D6 (the coil current represented by the pink curve "I L4" decreases slightly). As no more current flows through the open switch Q1, the voltage at the current measuring resistor R10A/B/C/D (dark blue curve "R10") drops and with it the measurement signal representing the current flow at the measurement input pin 1 of the ASIC U1 (green curve "U1 1"). Figure 17: 9 If the current flowing through the charging coil L4 reaches the zero crossing, the voltage signal (green curve "U1 1") at the measuring input pin 1 of the ASIC U1 shows a spontaneous negative peak. In particular, the voltage Vds applied to capacitor C3 drops abruptly when the switch current I L4 reaches zero crossing, which causes the voltage signal (voltage drop) to be transferred through capacitor C3 to ASIC U1. For the other measurement diagrams, please refer to Exhibit K 11. They show that the freewheeling diode blocks when the switch is closed and therefore no current flows between the freewheeling diode D6 and the charging capacitor EC1 or that when the switch is open, the final charging current of the charging coil L4 flows into the charging capacitor EC1 via the freewheeling diode and charges it. In their counterclaim, the defendants request that the patent in suit be revoked with effect for all contracting states of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court (UPCA) in which the patent in suit has effect, to the extent of claims 7 to 10. The plaintiff defends the patent in suit, in the alternative formulating an amended version in seven auxiliary requests. To avoid repetition, reference is also made to the entire contents of the file. Motions by the parties: 10 I. It is noted that the defendants infringe EP 2 011 218 B1 if they offer, place on the market or use boost power factor correction circuits (boost PFC) in Germany or France or import or possess them for the aforementioned purposes, if the circuit comprises a freewheeling diode, a charging coil connected in series with the freewheeling diode, a switch, a charging capacitor and an electronic control and/or regulating unit, wherein the charging capacitor is charged by the controlled switch with a discharge current created by the charging coil, whereby the switch can be switched on and off by the electronic control and/or regulating unit, and if the electronic control and/or regulation unit is connected to an input - directly or indirectly detects the current through the switch in time durations in which the switch is closed, and - detects a further operating parameter of the BoostPFC circuit in time durations in which the switch is open, the detected further operating parameter being the zero crossing of the current flowing through the charging coil, and the circuit further comprises a decoupling element for decoupling the detection of the switching current and the detection of the zero crossing of the current flowing through the charging coil. [Claim 7] II. The defendants are ordered to refrain from offering, placing on the market or using boost power factor correction circuits (boost PFCs) in Germany or France or importing or possessing them for the aforementioned purposes, if the circuit comprises a freewheeling diode, a charging coil connected in series with the freewheeling diode, a switch, a charging capacitor and an electronic control and/or regulating unit, wherein the charging capacitor is charged by the controlled switch with a discharge current created by the charging coil, whereby the switch can be switched on and off by the electronic control and/or regulating unit, and if the electronic control and/or regulation unit is connected to an input - directly or indirectly detects the current through the switch in time durations in which the switch is closed, and - detects a further operating parameter of the BoostPFC circuit in time durations in which the switch is open, the detected further operating parameter being the zero crossing of the current flowing through the charging coil, and the circuit further comprises a decoupling element for decoupling the detection of the switching current and the detection of the zero crossing of the current flowing through the charging coil, 11 [Claim 7] III. The defendants are ordered to provide the plaintiff with information, in an orderly and comprehensible list, on the extent to which they have committed the acts referred to in section II since 21 September 2016, stating 1. the origin and distribution channels of the infringing products, 2. the quantities delivered, received or ordered and the prices paid for the infringing products, and 3. the identity of all third parties involved in the manufacture or distribution of infringing creations, whereby the defendants must submit copies of the corresponding proof of purchase, namely invoices, or alternatively delivery bills, to prove the information according to III.1 to III.3 above, whereby details requiring secrecy outside the data to be disclosed may be blacked out. IV. The defendants are ordered to provide the plaintiff with an orderly and comprehensible statement of the extent to which they have committed the acts referred to in section II. since September 21, 2016, stating 1. of the individual deliveries, broken down by delivery quantities, delivery times, delivery prices and type designations as well as the names and addresses of the commercial customers, 2. of the individual offers, broken down by offer quantities, offer times, offer prices and type designations as well as the names and addresses of the commercial offerees, 3. of the advertising operated, broken down by advertising media, their circulation figures, distribution period and distribution area, 4. the prime costs broken down by the individual cost factors and the profit generated. V. The defendants are ordered to surrender to a bailiff to be appointed by the plaintiff for the purpose of destruction, at their, the defendants', expense, the products referred to in II. above which are in their direct or indirect possession or ownership. VI. The defendants are ordered to recall the products referred to in section II. which have been placed on the market since September 21, 2016, with reference to the patent- infringing status of the goods established by the court (judgment of the UPC of ...) and with the binding undertaking to reimburse any fees and to bear any necessary packaging and transport costs as well as customs and storage costs associated with the return and to take back the products. 12 VII. In the event of infringement of the sentences under II, III, IV, V or VI, the defendants are obliged to pay the court a penalty payment of up to EUR 250,000 for each case of infringement. VIII. It is established that the defendants are jointly and severally liable to compensate the plaintiff for all damages in excess of the interim damages pursuant to section IX. which she has suffered and will suffer as a result of the acts referred to in section II. committed since September 21, 2016. IX. The defendants are ordered as joint and several debtors to pay the plaintiff provisional damages in the fee of EUR 46,000.00. X. Orders the defendants to pay the costs of the proceedings and the plaintiff's other costs. XI. Should the court make the enforcement of this judgment dependent on the provision of security by the plaintiff, the plaintiff requests that the following partial securities be set: Item II (Omission) EUR 350,000 Item IV (Information) EUR 25,000 Item V. (Accounting) EUR 25,000 Item VI. (Destruction) EUR 50,000 Item VII. (Recall) EUR 50,000 Section IX (preliminary damages) in the fee of the amount awarded; the plaintiff further requests the following, dismiss the defendant's auxiliary motions relating to the submission of documents and the accounting application; the plaintiff further requests in the alternative that auxiliary request 1: I. declare that the defendants infringe EP 2 011 218 B1 if they offer, place on the market or use, or import or possess for said purposes, boost power factor correction circuits (boost PFC) in Germany or France, if the circuit comprises a freewheeling diode, a charging coil connected in series with the freewheeling diode, a switch, a charging capacitor and an electronic control and/or regulating unit, a charging capacitor and an electronic control and/or regulating unit, wherein the charging capacitor is charged by a discharge current created by the charging coil through the controlled switch, wherein the switch can be switched on and off by the electronic control and/or regulating unit, and wherein the electronic control and/or regulating unit is connected to an input of the charging capacitor. 13 - directly or indirectly detects and measures the current through the switch during periods when the switch is closed, and - detects and measures a further operating parameter of the boost PFC circuit in time periods in which the switch is open, the detected and measured further operating parameter being the zero crossing of the current flowing through the load coil, and the circuit further comprises a decoupling element for decoupling the detection and measurement of the switch current and the detection and measurement of the zero crossing of the current flowing through the charging coil. [Claim 7 as amended by auxiliary request 1 of the request for amendment of the patent in suit] II. The defendants are ordered to refrain from offering, placing on the market or using boost power factor correction circuits (boost PFC) in Germany or France, or introducing or possessing them for the aforementioned purposes, if the circuit comprises a freewheeling diode, a charging coil connected in series with the freewheeling diode, a switch, a charging capacitor and an electronic control and/or regulation unit, a charging capacitor and an electronic control and/or regulating unit, wherein the charging capacitor is charged by the controlled switch with a discharge current generated by the charging coil, wherein the switch can be switched on and off by the electronic control and/or regulating unit, and wherein the electronic control and/or regulating unit is connected to an input of the charging capacitor. - directly or indirectly detects and measures the current through the switch during periods when the switch is closed, and - detects and measures a further operating parameter of the boost PFC circuit in time periods in which the switch is open, the detected and measured further operating parameter being the zero crossing of the current flowing through the load coil, and the circuit further comprises a decoupling element for decoupling the detection and measurement of the switch current and the detection and measurement of the zero crossing of the current flowing through the charging coil. [Claim 7 as amended by auxiliary request 1 of the request for amendment of the patent in suit] Auxiliary request 2: I. It is declared that the defendants infringe EP 2 011 218 B1 if they offer, place on the market or use boost power factor correction circuits (boost PFC) in Germany or France or import or possess them for the aforementioned purposes, if the circuit comprises a free-wheeling diode, a charging coil connected in series with the free-wheeling diode, a switch, a charging capacitor and an electronic control and/or regulating unit, wherein a discharge voltage created by the charging coil is used to charge the charging coil. 14 charging capacitor is charged by the controlled switch, whereby the switch can be switched on and off by the electronic control and/or regulating unit, and when the electronic control and/or regulating unit is connected to an input port of the charging capacitor, the charging capacitor is charged by the controlled switch. - directly or indirectly detects the current through the switch periods when the switch is closed, and - detecting a further operating parameter of the boost PFC circuit in time periods in which the switch is open, the detected further operating parameter being the zero crossing of the current flowing through the charging coil, and the circuit further comprises a decoupling element for capacitively decoupling the detection of the switch current and the detection of the zero crossing of the current flowing through the charging coil. [Claim 7 as amended by auxiliary request 2 of the request for amendment of the patent in suit] II. The defendants are ordered to refrain from offering, placing on the market or using boost power factor correction circuits (boost PFCs) in Germany or France, or importing or possessing them for the aforementioned purposes, if the circuit comprises a freewheeling diode, a charging coil connected in series with the freewheeling diode, a switch, a charging capacitor and an electronic control and/or regulating unit, wherein the charging capacitor is charged by the controlled switch with a discharge current created by the charging coil, wherein the switch can be switched on and off by the electronic control and/or regulating unit, and wherein the electronic control and/or regulating unit is connected to an input of the charging capacitor. - directly or indirectly detects the current through the switch periods when the switch is closed, and - detecting a further operating parameter of the boost PFC circuit in time periods in which the switch is open, the detected further operating parameter being the zero crossing of the current flowing through the charging coil, and the circuit further comprises a decoupling element for capacitively decoupling the detection of the switch current and the detection of the zero crossing of the current flowing through the charging coil. [Claim 7 as amended by auxiliary request 2 of the request for amendment of the patent in suit] Auxiliary request 3: I. It is declared that the defendants infringe EP 2 011 218 B1 if they offer, place on the market or use, or import or possess for the said purposes, boost power factor correction circuits (boost PFC) in Germany or France, if the circuit comprises a freewheeling diode, a charging coil connected in series with the freewheeling diode, a switch, a charging capacitor and a charging capacitor. 15 comprises an electronic control and/or regulating unit, wherein the charging capacitor is charged by the controlled switch with a discharge current generated by the charging coil, wherein the switch can be switched on and off by the electronic control and/or regulating unit, and when the electronic control and/or regulating unit is connected to an input of the charging capacitor, the charging capacitor is charged by the controlled switch. - via a measuring resistor (R1) connected in series with the switch (M1), detects the current through the switch during periods in which the switch is closed, and - detecting a further operating parameter of the boost PFC circuit in time periods in which the switch is open, the detected further operating parameter being the zero crossing of the current flowing through the charging coil, and the circuit further comprises a decoupling element for decoupling the detection of the switching current and the detection of the zero crossing of the current flowing through the charging coil. [Claim 7 as amended by auxiliary request 3 of the request for amendment of the patent in suit] II. The defendants are ordered to refrain from offering, placing on the market or using boost power factor correction circuits (boost PFC) in Germany or France, or importing or possessing them for the aforementioned purposes, if the circuit comprises a freewheeling diode, a charging coil connected in series with the freewheeling diode, a switch, a charging capacitor and an electronic control and/or regulation unit, a charging capacitor and an electronic control and/or regulating unit, wherein the charging capacitor is charged by the controlled switch with a discharge current created by the charging coil, wherein the switch can be switched on and off by the electronic control and/or regulating unit, and wherein the electronic control and/or regulating unit is connected to an input of the charging capacitor. - via a measuring resistor (R1) connected in series with the switch (M1), detects the current through the switch during periods in which the switch is closed, and - detecting a further operating parameter of the boost PFC circuit in time periods in which the switch is open, the detected further operating parameter being the zero crossing of the current flowing through the charging coil, and the circuit further comprises a decoupling element for decoupling the detection of the switching current and the detection of the zero crossing of the current flowing through the charging coil. [Claim 7 as amended by auxiliary request 3 of the request for amendment of the patent in suit] Auxiliary request 4: I. It is declared that the defendants infringe EP 2 011 218 B1 by using boost power factor correction circuits (boost PFC), in Germany or 16 offer, place on the market or use in France, or import or possess for the aforementioned purposes, if the circuit comprises a freewheeling diode, a charging coil connected in series with the freewheeling diode, a switch, a charging capacitor and an electronic control and/or regulating unit, the charging capacitor charged by the controlled switch with a discharge current generated by the charging coil, in which case the switch can be switched on and off by the electronic control and/or regulating unit, and if the electronic control and/or regulating unit is connected to an input of the charging capacitor at an input of the charging coil. - directly or indirectly detects and measures the current through the switch during periods when the switch is closed, and - detecting and measuring a further operating parameter of the boost PFC circuit in time durations in which the switch is open, wherein the detected and measured further operating parameter is the zero crossing of the current flowing through the charging coil, and the circuit further comprises a decoupling element for capacitively decoupling the detection and measurement of the switch current and the detection and measurement of the zero crossing of the current flowing through the charging coil. [Claim 7 as amended by auxiliary request 4 of the request for amendment of the patent in suit] II. The defendants are ordered to refrain from offering, placing on the market or using boost power factor correction circuits (boost PFCs) in Germany or France or importing or possessing them for the aforementioned purposes, if the circuit comprises a freewheeling diode, a charging coil connected in series with the freewheeling diode, a switch, a charging capacitor and an electronic control and/or regulating unit, the charging capacitor charged by the controlled switch with a discharge current generated by the charging coil, in which case the switch can be switched on and off by the electronic control and/or regulating unit, and if the electronic control and/or regulating unit is connected to an input of the charging capacitor at an input of the charging coil. - directly or indirectly detects and measures the current through the switch during periods when the switch is closed, and - detecting and measuring a further operating parameter of the boost PFC circuit in time durations in which the switch is open, wherein the detected and measured further operating parameter is the zero crossing of the current flowing through the charging coil, and the circuit further comprises a decoupling element for capacitively decoupling the detection and measurement of the switch current and the detection and measurement of the zero crossing of the current flowing through the charging coil. [Claim 7 as amended by auxiliary request 4 of the request for amendment of the patent in suit] 17 Auxiliary request 5: I. It is declared that the defendants infringe EP 2 011 218 B1 if they offer, place on the market or use boost power factor correction circuits (boost PFC) in Germany or France or import or possess them for the aforementioned purposes, if the circuit comprises a freewheeling diode, a charging coil connected in series with the freewheeling diode, a switch, a charging capacitor and an electronic control and/or regulating unit, the charging capacitor charged by the controlled switch with a discharge current generated by the charging coil, in which case the switch can be switched on and off by the electronic control and/or regulating unit, and if the electronic control and/or regulating unit is connected to an input of the charging capacitor at an input of the charging coil. - via a measuring resistor (R1) connected in series with the switch (M1), detects and measures the current through the switch during periods in which the switch is closed, and - detecting and measuring a further operating parameter of the boost PFC circuit in time durations in which the switch is open, wherein the detected and measured further operating parameter is the zero crossing of the current flowing through the charging coil, and the circuit further comprises a decoupling element for decoupling the detection and measurement of the switch current and the detection and measurement of the zero crossing of the current flowing through the charging coil. [Claim 7 as amended by auxiliary request 5 of the request for amendment of the patent in suit] II. The defendants are ordered to refrain from offering, placing on the market or using boost power factor correction circuits (boost PFCs) in Germany or France, or importing or possessing them for the aforementioned purposes, if the circuit comprises a freewheeling diode, a charging coil connected in series with the freewheeling diode, a switch, a charging capacitor and an electronic control and/or regulating unit, the charging capacitor charged by the controlled switch with a discharge current generated by the charging coil, in which case the switch can be switched on and off by the electronic control and/or regulating unit, and if the electronic control and/or regulating unit is connected to an input of the charging capacitor at an input of the charging coil. - via a measuring resistor (R1) connected in series with the switch (M1), detects and measures the current through the switch during periods in which the switch is closed, and - another operating parameter of the boost PFC circuit is recorded in durations 18 and measured in which the switch is open, the other operating parameter sensed and measured being the zero crossing of the current flowing through the charging coil, and the circuit further comprises a decoupling element for decoupling the detection and measurement of the switch current and the detection and measurement of the zero crossing of the current flowing through the charging coil. [Claim 7 as amended by auxiliary request 5 of the request for amendment of the patent in suit] Auxiliary request 6: I. It is declared that the defendants infringe EP 2 011 218 B1 if they offer, place on the market or use boost power factor correction circuits (boost PFC) in Germany or France or import or possess them for the aforementioned purposes, if the circuit comprises a freewheeling diode, a charging coil connected in series with the freewheeling diode, a switch, a charging capacitor and an electronic control and/or regulating unit, the charging capacitor charged by the controlled switch with a discharge current generated by the charging coil, in which case the switch can be switched on and off by the electronic control and/or regulating unit, and if the electronic control and/or regulating unit is connected to an input of the charging capacitor at an input of the charging coil. - via a measuring resistor (R1) connected in series with the switch (M1), detects the current through the switch during periods in which the switch is closed, and - detecting a further operating parameter of the boost PFC circuit in time periods in which the switch is open, wherein the detected further operating parameter is the zero crossing of the current flowing through the charging coil, and the circuit further comprises a decoupling element for capacitively decoupling the detection of the switch current and the detection of the zero crossing of the current flowing through the charging coil. [Claim 7 as amended by auxiliary request 6 of the request for amendment of the patent in suit] II. The defendants are ordered to refrain from offering, placing on the market or using boost power factor correction circuits (boost PFCs) in Germany or France or importing or possessing them for the aforementioned purposes, if the circuit comprises a freewheeling diode, a charging coil connected in series with the freewheeling diode, a switch, a charging capacitor and an electronic control and/or regulating unit, wherein the charging capacitor charged by the controlled switch with a discharge current created by the charging coil, whereby the switch is switched on and off by the electronic control and/or regulating unit. 19 can be switched, and if the electronic control and/or regulation unit is connected to an input - via a measuring resistor (R1) connected in series with the switch (M1), detects the current through the switch during periods in which the switch is closed, and - detecting a further operating parameter of the boost PFC circuit in time periods in which the switch is open, wherein the detected further operating parameter is the zero crossing of the current flowing through the charging coil, and the circuit further comprises a decoupling element for capacitively decoupling the detection of the switch current and the detection of the zero crossing of the current flowing through the charging coil. [Claim 7 as amended by auxiliary request 6 of the request for amendment of the patent in suit] Auxiliary request 7: I. It is declared that the defendants infringe EP 2 011 218 B1 if they offer, place on the market or use boost power factor correction circuits (boost PFC) in Germany or France or import or possess them for the aforementioned purposes, if the circuit comprises a freewheeling diode, a charging coil connected in series with the freewheeling diode, a switch, a charging capacitor and an electronic control and/or regulating unit, the charging capacitor charged by the controlled switch with a discharge current generated by the charging coil, in which case the switch can be switched on and off by the electronic control and/or regulating unit, and if the electronic control and/or regulating unit is connected to an input of the charging capacitor at an input of the charging coil. - via a measuring resistor (R1) connected in series with the switch (M1), detects and measures the current through the switch during periods in which the switch is closed, and - detecting and measuring a further operating parameter of the boost PFC circuit in time durations in which the switch is open, wherein the detected and measured further operating parameter is the zero crossing of the current flowing through the charging coil, and the circuit further comprises a decoupling element for capacitively decoupling the detection and measurement of the switch current and the detection and measurement of the zero crossing of the current flowing through the charging coil. [Claim 7 as amended by auxiliary request 7 of the request for amendment of the patent in suit] II. The defendants are ordered to refrain from offering, placing on the market or using boost power factor correction circuits (boost PFCs) in Germany or France or importing or selling them for the aforementioned purposes. 20 own, if the circuit comprises a freewheeling diode, a charging coil connected in series with the freewheeling diode, a switch, a charging capacitor and an electronic control and/or regulating unit, the charging capacitor charged by the controlled switch with a discharge current generated by the charging coil, in which case the switch can be switched on and off by the electronic control and/or regulating unit, and if the electronic control and/or regulating unit is connected to an input of the charging capacitor at an input of the charging coil. - via a measuring resistor (R1) connected in series with the switch (M1), detects and measures the current through the switch during periods in which the switch is closed, and - detecting and measuring a further operating parameter of the boost PFC circuit in time durations in which the switch is open, wherein the detected and measured further operating parameter is the zero crossing of the current flowing through the charging coil, and the circuit further comprises a decoupling element for capacitively decoupling the detection and measurement of the switch current and the detection and measurement of the zero crossing of the current flowing through the charging coil. [Claim 7 as amended by auxiliary request 7 of the request for amendment of the patent in suit] The defendants request, I. dismiss the action; in the further alternative, in the event that the Chamber orders the submission of supporting documents in response to the motion under III. and/or the rendering of accounts in response to the motion under IV. - on the plaintiff's side only their legal representatives, in the further alternative: only their legal representatives and no more than three reliable natural persons to be named by the plaintiff in advance, and - are to an appropriate duty of confidentiality; in the further alternative: to make the enforcement of the judgment conditional on the provision of security or equivalent guarantees in the amount of at least EUR 500,000, with partial security being proposed in at least the following fees: Injunction (motion II), destruction (motion V), recall (motion VI) together at least EUR 450,000; Information (motion under III.), accounting (motion under IV.) together at least EUR 50,000; 21 interim damages (motion under IX.) 10 percent above the amount to be paid in full; II. order the plaintiff to pay the costs of the proceedings and the defendant's other costs. The defendants request that the court dismiss the action, I. declare the patent in suit invalid in the scope of claims 7 to 10 for all Contracting States of the UPC in which the patent in suit is validated; II. order the plaintiff and defendant to pay the costs. The plaintiff requests, I. dismiss the actions for annulment; II. order the defendants to pay the costs of the actions for annulment and the costs incurred by the plaintiff in connection therewith; and alternatively, the maintenance of claims 7-10 of the patent in suit to the extent of one of the following sets of claims, in the order of priority chosen here: I. Auxiliary request 1: 7. Boost converter power factor correction circuit (boost PFC), wherein the circuit comprises a freewheeling diode (D1), a charging coil (L1) connected in series with the freewheeling diode (D1), a switch (M1), a charging capacitor (C1) and an electronic control and/or regulating unit, wherein the charging capacitor (C1) is charged by a discharge current created by the charging coil (L1) through the controlled switch (M1), whereby the switch (M1) can be switched on and off by the electronic control and/or regulation unit, characterized in that that the electronic control and/or regulation unit is connected to an input - directly or indirectly detects and measures the current through the switch (M1) during periods in which the switch (M1) is closed, and - detects and measures a further operating parameter of the boost PFC circuit in time durations in which the switch (M1) is open, the detected and measured further operating parameter being the zero crossing of the current flowing through the charging coil (L1). 22 current, and that the circuit further comprises a decoupling element for decoupling the detection and measurement of the switch current and the detection and measurement of the zero crossing of the current flowing through the charging coil (L1). 8. Circuit according to claim 7, whereby the zero crossing of the current flowing through the charging coil (L1) is detected in a potential-separated manner, in particular inductively. 9. Circuit according to claim 7 or 8, whereby the control and regulation unit switches the switch (M1) back on at the time of zero passage of the current through the charging coil (L1). 10. Circuit according to any one of claims 7-9, whereby the current through the switch (M1) or a representative variable is compared with a threshold value and the switch (M1) is switched off again as soon as the threshold value is reached or exceeded. II. Auxiliary request 2: 7. Boost converter power factor correction circuit (boost PFC), wherein the circuit comprises a freewheeling diode (D1), a charging coil (L1) connected in series with the freewheeling diode (D1), a switch (M1), a charging capacitor (C1) and an electronic control and/or regulating unit, wherein the charging capacitor (C1) is charged by a discharge current created by the charging coil (L1) through the controlled switch (M1), whereby the switch (M1) can be switched on and off by the electronic control and/or regulation unit, characterized in that that the electronic control and/or regulation unit is connected to an input - directly or indirectly detects the current through the switch (M1) during periods in which the switch (M1) is closed, and - detects a further operating parameter of the boost PFC circuit in time durations in which the switch (M1) is open, the detected further operating parameter being the zero crossing of the current flowing through the charging coil (L1), and that the circuit further comprises a decoupling element for capacitively decoupling the detection of the switch current and the detection of the zero crossing of the current flowing through the charging coil (L1). 8. Circuit according to claim 7, where the zero crossing of the current flowing through the charging coil (L1) is potential-free. 23 separated, in particular inductively. 9. Circuit according to claim 7 or 8, whereby the control and regulation unit switches the switch (M1) back on at the time of zero passage of the current through the charging coil (L1). 10. Circuit according to any one of claims 7-9, whereby the current through the switch (M1) or a representative variable is compared with a threshold value and the switch (M1) is switched off again as soon as the threshold value is reached or exceeded. III. Auxiliary request 3: 7. Boost converter power factor correction circuit (boost PFC), wherein the circuit comprises a freewheeling diode (D1), a charging coil (L1) connected in series with the freewheeling diode (D1), a switch (M1), a charging capacitor (C1) and an electronic control and/or regulating unit, wherein the charging capacitor (C1) is charged by a discharge current created by the charging coil (L1) through the controlled switch (M1), whereby the switch (M1) can be switched on and off by the electronic control and/or regulation unit, characterized in that that the electronic control and/or regulation unit is connected to an input - directly or indirectly via a measuring resistance (R1) connected in series with the switch (M1), detects the current through the switch (M1) during periods in which the switch (M1) is closed, and - detecting a further operating parameter of the boost PFC circuit in time periods in which the switch (M1) is open, wherein the detected further operating parameter is the zero crossing of the current flowing through the charging coil (L1), and that the circuit further comprises a decoupling element for decoupling the detection of the switch current and the detection of the zero crossing of the current flowing through the charging coil (L1). 8. Circuit according to claim 7, whereby the zero crossing of the current flowing through the charging coil (L1) is detected in a potential-separated manner, in particular inductively. 9. Circuit according to claim 7 or 8, whereby the control and regulation unit switches the switch (M1) back on at the time of zero passage of the current through the charging coil (L1). 10. Circuit according to any one of claims 7-9, 24 whereby the current through the switch (M1) or a representative variable is compared with a threshold value and the switch (M1) is switched off again as soon as the threshold value is reached or exceeded. IV. Auxiliary request 4: 7. Boost converter power factor correction circuit (boost PFC), wherein the circuit comprises a freewheeling diode (D1), a charging coil (L1) connected in series with the freewheeling diode (D1), a switch (M1), a charging capacitor (C1) and an electronic control and/or regulating unit, wherein the charging capacitor (C1) is charged by a discharge current created by the charging coil (L1) through the controlled switch (M1), whereby the switch (M1) can be switched on and off by the electronic control and/or regulation unit, characterized in that that the electronic control and/or regulation unit is connected to an input - directly or indirectly detects and measures the current through the switch (M1) during periods in which the switch (M1) is closed, and - detecting and measuring a further operating parameter of the boost PFC circuit in time durations in which the switch (M1) is open, wherein the detected and measured further operating parameter is the zero crossing of the current flowing through the charging coil (L1), and that the circuit further comprises a decoupling element for capacitively decoupling the detection and measurement of the switch current and the detection and measurement of the zero crossing of the current flowing through the charging coil (L1). 8. Circuit according to claim 7, whereby the zero crossing of the current flowing through the charging coil (L1) is detected in a potential-separated manner, in particular inductively. 9. Circuit according to claim 7 or 8, whereby the control and regulation unit switches the switch (M1) back on at the time of zero passage of the current through the charging coil (L1). 10. Circuit according to any one of claims 7-9, whereby the current through the switch (M1) or a representative variable is compared with a threshold value and the switch (M1) is switched off again as soon as the threshold value is reached or exceeded. V. Auxiliary request 5: 7. Boost converter power factor correction circuit (boost PFC), 25 wherein the circuit comprises a freewheeling diode (D1), a charging coil (L1) connected in series with the freewheeling diode (D1), a switch (M1), a charging capacitor (C1) and an electronic control and/or regulating unit, wherein the charging capacitor (C1) is charged by a discharge current created by the charging coil (L1) through the controlled switch (M1), whereby the switch (M1) can be switched on and off by the electronic control and/or regulation unit, characterized in that that the electronic control and/or regulation unit is connected to an input - directly or indirectly via a measuring resistor (R1) connected in series with the switch (M1), detects and measures the current through the switch (M1) during periods in which the switch (M1) is closed, and - detects and measures a further operating parameter of the boost PFC circuit in time durations in which the switch (M1) is open, wherein the detected and measured further operating parameter is the zero crossing of the current flowing through the charging coil (L1), and that the circuit further comprises a decoupling element for decoupling the detection and measurement of the switch current and the detection and measurement of the zero crossing of the current flowing through the charging coil (L1). 8. Circuit according to claim 7, whereby the zero crossing of the current flowing through the charging coil (L1) is detected in a potential-separated manner, in particular inductively. 9. Circuit according to claim 7 or 8, whereby the control and regulation unit switches the switch (M1) back on at the time of zero passage of the current through the charging coil (L1). 10. Circuit according to any one of claims 7-9, whereby the current through the switch (M1) or a representative variable is compared with a threshold value and the switch (M1) is switched off again as soon as the threshold value is reached or exceeded. VI. Auxiliary request 6: 7. Boost converter power factor correction circuit (boost PFC), wherein the circuit comprises a freewheeling diode (D1), a charging coil (L1) connected in series with the freewheeling diode (D1), a switch (M1), a charging capacitor (C1) and an electronic control and/or regulating unit, wherein the charging capacitor (C1) is charged by a discharge current created by the charging coil (L1) through the controlled switch (M1), 26 whereby the switch (M1) can be switched on and off by the electronic control and/or regulation unit, characterized in that that the electronic control and/or regulation unit is connected to an input - directly or indirectly via a measuring resistor (R1) connected in series with the switch (M1), detects the current through the switch (M1) during periods in which the switch (M1) is closed, and - detects a further operating parameter of the boost PFC circuit in time durations in which the switch (M1) is open, the detected further operating parameter being the zero crossing of the current flowing through the charging coil (L1), and that the circuit further comprises a decoupling element for capacitively decoupling the detection of the switch current and the detection of the zero crossing of the current flowing through the charging coil (L1). 8. Circuit according to claim 7, whereby the zero crossing of the current flowing through the charging coil (L1) is detected in a potential-separated manner, in particular inductively. 9. Circuit according to claim 7 or 8, whereby the control and regulation unit switches the switch (M1) back on at the time of zero passage of the current through the charging coil (L1). 10. Circuit according to any one of claims 7-9, whereby the current through the switch (M1) or a representative variable is compared with a threshold value and the switch (M1) is switched off again as soon as the threshold value is reached or exceeded. VII. Auxiliary request 7: 7. Boost converter power factor correction circuit (boost PFC), wherein the circuit comprises a freewheeling diode (D1), a charging coil (L1) connected in series with the freewheeling diode (D1), a switch (M1), a charging capacitor (C1) and an electronic control and/or regulating unit, wherein the charging capacitor (C1) is charged by a discharge current created by the charging coil (L1) through the controlled switch (M1), whereby the switch (M1) can be switched on and off by the electronic control and/or regulation unit, characterized in that that the electronic control and/or regulation unit is connected to an input 27 - directly or indirectly via a measuring resistance (R1) connected in series with the switch (M1), detects and measures the current through the switch (M1) during periods in which the switch (M1) is closed, and - detects and measures a further operating parameter of the boost PFC circuit in time durations in which the switch (M1) is open, wherein the detected and measured further operating parameter is the zero crossing of the current flowing through the charging coil (L1), and that the circuit further comprises a decoupling element for capacitively decoupling the detection and measurement of the switch current and the detection and measurement of the zero crossing of the current flowing through the charging coil (L1). 8. Circuit according to claim 7, whereby the zero crossing of the current flowing through the charging coil (L1) is detected in a potential-separated manner, in particular inductively. 9. Circuit according to claim 7 or 8, whereby the control and regulation unit switches the switch (M1) back on at the time of zero passage of the current through the charging coil (L1). 10. Circuit according to any one of claims 7-9, whereby the current through the switch (M1) or a representative variable is compared with a threshold value and the switch (M1) is switched off again as soon as the threshold value is reached or exceeded. The defendants oppose the alternative claims. By order dated January 14, 2025, the judge-rapporteur concluded the interim proceedings with effect from January 16, 2025 and issued instructions and conditions for the conduct of the oral hearing. Factual and legal issues: Interpretation The plaintiff is of the opinion that skilled person understands the term "detection" within the meaning of feature 7.3 to mean more than a mere request for signals at the input of the electronic control unit. The signals must actually be used. The plaintiff is further of the opinion that claim 7 allows operation of the circuit according to the invention both in boundary-conduction mode (BCM) and in discontinuous-conduction mode (CDM). 28 mode (DCM), as the zero crossing of the coil current occurs in both operating modes and can be detected. The fact that the current and voltage curves in Fig. 4 of the patent in suit indicate operation in the boundary-conduction mode for a preferred embodiment described in more detail in this context does not lead to an interpretation of claim 7 which is limited to this, even on the basis of general principles of interpretation of patent law. Paragraph [0023] as well as sub-claim 9 of the patent in suit show that this operation is merely optional. The wording of claim 7 of the patent in suit does not mention what the signal indicating the zero crossing of the current and detected by the electronic control and/or regulating unit looks like, nor how it is generated or evaluated. The tapping by a detection coil L2 and a resistor R2 is merely an example of an embodiment. In this example, a voltage signal generated by this is present at the input of the control unit when the switch is open. If this voltage signal exceeds a predetermined reference value, the control unit detects this undershoot as the zero crossing. In Figures 3 and 4, the zero crossing is also detected shortly after it occurs. The claim is not limited to inductive detection by means of a second coil. Furthermore, the patent in suit is not limited to direct or indirect detection. The claim also makes no stipulations for the case of multiple zero crossings. Feature group 7.3 describes two different operating parameters that are determined from different signals that are applied to the same input of the electronic control and/or regulation unit. These different signals are supplied via (at least partially) different signal paths. However, if signals were transmitted to the same input of the electronic control and/or regulation unit via both signal paths at the same time, this could impair the intended detection of the operating parameters mentioned in each case. The isolated detection of the switch current would be impaired, for example, if a signal were also transmitted simultaneously via the second signal path provided for current zero crossing detection, as the measurement signal at the input of the control unit would then no longer represent the current flowing through the switch in an isolated manner. The patented function and significance of the decoupling element is therefore to prevent signals from being transmitted via the signal path provided for current zero-crossing detection when the switch is closed and from impairing the (isolated) detection of the current flowing through the switch that takes place during this period. The patent in suit also mentions a non-exhaustive list of possible embodiments of the decoupling element, including transistors and capacitive decoupling in addition to a diode. For the skilled person, the term "capacitive decoupling" readily includes, in particular, the use of a capacitor as a decoupling element. Any design that prevents signals from the signal path provided for zero- crossing current detection from also being present at the electronic control and/or regulation unit when the switch is closed is thus in accordance with the feature. The decoupling element therefore only develops its patented effect during the period in which the switch is closed and the current is detected by the switch at the input of the electronic control and/or regulation unit in accordance with feature 7.3.1. 29 The defendants argue that the closing and opening of the switch M1 in the patent in suit is controlled by the control unit, which receives operating parameters for this purpose. The zero crossing of the current flowing through the charging coil L1 must be recorded as an operating parameter during the time in which the switch is open and can thus be used for closing the switch ([0023] (according to [0048] aE). The time from which no more current should flow to the charging capacitor C1 via the charging coil L1 is to be detected. The other operating parameter is the current flowing through the switch. Since very many operating parameters of a boost PFC circuit are related to the zero crossing of the current flowing through the charging coil, the patent in suit is characterized by the fact that its control and/or regulating unit specifically detects the zero crossing and does so for each zero crossing that occurs. The omission of "direct or indirect" detection underlines the fact that the patent in suit is concerned with detecting the specific zero crossing. The acquisition of two measurement signals (i.e. on the one hand from the measurement of the switch current and on the other hand from the measurement of the zero crossing of the current via the charging coil) at only one pin of the control and/or regulation unit is realized by using a coupling element or decoupling element. Even if the zero crossing of the current flowing through the charging coil L1 and the current through the switch M1 do not occur simultaneously, the measuring paths would always reach one pin of the control unit when the switch is closed if the decoupling element did not exist. The decoupling element prevents this and leads to decoupling of the detection. If the switch is closed - in the case of using a diode - the voltage changes and the diode blocks and no longer allows a signal from the L2/R2 measuring unit to pass through. This requires an actual separation of the signal path. The plaintiff is guilty of circular reasoning if it takes the view that it is sufficient that no signal is created at the electronic control unit when the switch is closed. Action for infringement The plaintiff submits that the attacked embodiment infringes claim 7 of the patent in suit. It is of the opinion that the attacked embodiment detects the current zero crossing when switch Q1 is open. When switch Q1 is switched off, the charging coil current begins to drop. As long as it is still positive, it flows through the diode D1. If the current becomes negative, it still flows through the diode for a very short moment, as the plasma stored in it is cleared out. Only then does the charging coil current no longer flow through the diode, but through switch Q1, whose output capacitance it now discharges (for which switch Q1 does not have to be switched on and therefore no current flows through its channel). This causes the voltage Vds at switch Q1 to drop and this voltage change is detected by pin 1 of the ASIC (U1). The defendants did not deny the causality of the current zero crossing for the output of the negative voltage signal by the capacitor. However, the minimal inaccuracy resulting from the removal of the plasma in diode D6 did not change the suitability of the signal for detecting the current zero crossing. 30 Whether the attacked embodiment is operated in valley switching mode is irrelevant for the realization of the detection of the zero crossing. The only decisive factor is that the electronic control and/or regulation unit detects the zero crossing of the current flowing through the charging coil when the switch is open. The subsequent switch-on process is not the subject- matter of claim 7 of the patent in suit. This claim covers both operating modes in which the switch is switched on again when the zero crossing of the current is reached and those in which a certain time elapses between reaching the zero crossing of the current and the switch being switched on again. Likewise, the presence of two zero crossings and the fact that the capacitor emits another positive voltage signal after the switch Q1 is opened is irrelevant. Finally, when the switch Q1 is closed, the capacitor C3 prevents voltage signals from the signal path provided for current zero crossing detection from being present at pin 1 of ASIC U1, which could distort the signal present during this period for detecting the switch current. The capacitor C3 causes a capacitive decoupling in the sense of paragraph [0049] of the patent in dispute. If the voltage at switch Q1 does not change or changes only very little, no or only a very small current flows through it, since the current flow through a capacitor is proportional to the change in the voltage applied to it. In the attacked embodiment, this is the case when the switch Q1 is closed (and the current through the switch is measured). During this period, the voltage drop across the switch Q1 and its change are very small. As a result, the current through capacitor C3 is negligibly small and does not affect the switch current measurement signal applied to pin 1 of ASIC U1. Capacitor C3 prevents the voltage to the drain of switch Q1 during this period (via the current zero-crossing measurement path) from influencing the voltage drop to be measured at resistors R10A-R10D (for the purpose of switch current measurement). Therefore, the capacitor also causes a potential separation. This does not change even if the capacitor C3 is understood by the defendants as an element of a high-pass filter formed with the resistors R5, R8 and R10. Such a high-pass filter allows signals of high frequency (or with fast changes) to pass, signals of low frequency (or with slow changes) are blocked. Fast voltage changes, such as the drop in the drain-source voltage Vds at switch Q1 that occurs when the current crosses zero, would therefore be routed to pin 1 of the ASIC U1, while slow voltage changes, such as those that may occur when switch Q1 is switched on, would not. As a component of a high-pass filter, the capacitor C3 therefore also provides electrical isolation and thus enables undisturbed measurement of the switch current when the switch is closed. According to the claim, a signal overlay when the switch is open is not . When the switch is closed, there is no signal that influences the switching current measurement. The defendants are of the opinion that neither the electronic control and regulation unit of the attacked embodiment detects the zero crossing of the current flowing through the charging coil (feature 7.3.2) during periods in which the switch is open, nor that the attacked embodiment comprises a decoupling element (feature 7.4.) in accordance with the patent in dispute. The defendants argue that in comparison of the attacked embodiment with Figure 3 31 of the patent in dispute. The attacked embodiment does not have a sensing coil as part of the measuring unit for the current flowing through the charging coil L4. The capacitor C3 neither measures the current flowing through the charging coil L4 nor does it detect the zero crossing of this current. Rather, the capacitor C3 is part of the "Measuring unit" (capacitor C3 and R5, R8 and R10, which represent a high-pass filter) for the voltage across switch Q1. For this purpose, it is permanently connected to switch Q1 and also to a pin of the control unit. If a voltage change occurs at switch Q1, current flows from capacitor C3 to the control unit and is as a measurement signal at the pin of the control unit. If there is no voltage change, no current flows from capacitor C3, which is then also present as a measurement signal at the pin of the control unit. As a result, the attacked embodiment does not detect any of two zero crossings between which the current of the charging coil is negative, which results from the parasitic capacitance of the switch Q1. Thus, Figure 17 (Figure 2 of Exhibit K11) shows nothing happens at the pin (green curve, U1 1) at the time of the zero crossing of the current flowing through the charging coil L4, but that the voltage only drops at a later point in time. A conspicuous measurement signal from the capacitor C3 with the resistors R5, R8 and R10 reaches the pin when the capacitor C3 detects a drop in the voltage Vds via the switch Q1 (black curve, Vds). The voltage Vds is according to the output voltage VBus as long as current flows from the charging coil L4 via the freewheeling terminal D6 to the charging capacitor EC1. Once the current flow has ended, the voltage changes, which in turn means that the switch Q1 is no longer connected in parallel with the charging capacitor EC1. As a result, the voltage Vds across switch Q1 changes and assumes the value of the input voltage VIn. Since the input voltage VIn is lower than the output voltage VBus, the voltage Vds decreases, which is reflected in the black curve in Figure 17 by the drop from a high level (VBus) to a lower level (not zero, but VIn). And as the plaintiff's own measurements have shown, the voltage drop at switch Q1 does not begin with the zero crossing of the current flowing through charging coil L4, but later. The measurement signal that is sent by the capacitor C3 to the voltage change at the switch Q1 can be clearly recognized in the green curve in Figure 17 by the "sagging" of the green curve U 1 1 when the voltage Vds across the switch drops. This measurement of the voltage change across the switch Q1 is used to control the switch M1, as Figure 17 illustrates, because the voltage that switches the switch M1 (blue curve Vgs) does not increase with the first zero crossing of the current flowing through the coil (pink curve), but when the voltage Vds across the switch changes. The switch is then closed. During this time, the voltage across the switch Vds remains constantly low (at the level of the input voltage). Then the switch Q1 is opened again, which can be recognized by the fact that the voltage Vgs, which switches the switch Q1, decreases (blue curve). The switch Q1 opens and it can be seen that the voltage Vds at the switch (black curve) then rises very quickly (back to VBus). And of course the capacitor C3, which permanently monitors the voltage across switch Q1 as a "measuring unit", also detects this voltage change at switch Q1 and a measuring signal is sent to the pin, as there no decoupling element. This can also be seen from the following figure, which is taken from the statement of defense. 32 When switch Q1 is opened (see blue curve drop), the voltage across switch Vds (see black curve) rises very quickly. This leads to a very clear deflection of the green curve, i.e. to a very clear measurement signal for the switch voltage Vds at the pin addressed by the plaintiff. The measurement signal for the current at switch Q1 is also to the pin, as shown by the two lower curves R10 and U1 1 in Figure 17. The dark blue curve reflects the current across the switch, which is continuously shown in the green curve, i.e. at the pin in the form of more or less clear measurement signals. This signal is then clearly superimposed by signals from capacitor C3 when the voltage at switch Q1 changes (see the two deflections in the green curve). Both measurement signals (the current through the switch Q1 and also the voltage across the switch Vds) are permanently present at the pin considered by the plaintiff and are not decoupled by anything. Every change in voltage across the switch that caused current to flow through the capacitor was transmitted to the pin in the form of a signal, as was every current detected by the resistors R10-D. This means that the voltage across the switch is always measured and any change that is detected is forwarded to the control unit. In this respect, there is no detection only during periods in which the switch is open (feature 7.3.2). Nothing else is apparent from the application description of the ASIC installed in the attacked embodiment. 33 (Exhibit K 12). Apart the fact that this could not be taken into account purely formally due to the lack of translation and the lack of a waiver request submitted according to to, it is also not clear from this that the zero crossing of the current flowing through the coil is recorded, but rather the operating parameter above the switch. Even if this operating parameter is related to the zero crossing (like almost all operating parameters), it cannot be equated with it. All operating parameters, as well as the voltage across the switch, follow or precede the zero crossing of the current flowing through the coil, whereby the time offset depends on the components, but also on the voltage or the temperature - not only the ambient temperature, but also the operating temperature, which rises in the course of operation. Nor can the plaintiff rely on the fact that the "measuring unit" for the other operating parameter (the voltage across the switch) is a capacitor C3, which only allows current to flow when it detects a change in voltage. This is because it does not decouple this "measuring unit" from the control unit or the "measuring unit" for the current through the switch, but only causes measurement signals to be sent when there are voltage changes that occur both when the switch is closed and when it is open. Zero crossings would also occur in CCM mode. The defendants further argue that the currents and voltages occurring at the respective components of the boost PFC circuit are of great importance. In the attacked embodiment, a switching process, so-called valley switching, occurs after the first zero crossing of the choke current. This switching process is dependent on both the input voltage and the operating temperature of the components. The additional parameter detected by the control unit at pin 1 is not the zero crossing of the current flowing through the charging coil, but a voltage signal resulting from the switching current between phases 2 and 3. It is not possible to determine the time of the zero crossing in the attacked embodiment due to the dependencies stated above and the plasma behavior of the boost diode. The defendants are further of the opinion that a galvanic separation in the signal path (feature 7.4), which is to be effected by the capacitor, is refuted by the plaintiff's own measurement results. The patent in dispute is about actually separating the signal path between the detection of an operating parameter and the detection of the control unit. This does not happen with capacitor C3. The pin of the control unit receives a very clear signal from current flowing through capacitor C3, even when the switch is closedas can be seen from the peaks in the green curve. According to the patent in dispute, however, the other operating parameter (zero crossing) should only be detected during periods in which the switch is open. Both the capacitor C3 with resistors R5, R8 and R10 and the resistors R10A-D are permanently connected to the same pin of the control unit without interruption. The only thing that the attacked embodiment exploits is that the measurement signal from capacitor C3 that results when the switch is open occurs when the switch is open and therefore not at the same time as the actual measurement signal for the current flowing via the switch. And the measurement signal from capacitor C3, when the switch is closed and its voltage therefore rises very quickly, is such a clear peak that the control unit can deal with this and the simultaneous information on the current via the switch. However, this does not change the fact that both "measuring units" - capacitor C3 with resistors R5, R8 and 10 and resistors R10A-D - are always connected to the control unit at one pin without interruption (without a decoupling element). 34 According to the defendant, the attacked embodiment therefore does not have a decoupling element according to the invention. The capacitor C3 reacts to any voltage change across the switch/MOSFET and then via the signal path with the resistors RM1 and RM2 if a voltage level other than zero is present at pin 1 of the control unit. If there is no change in the voltage across the switch/MOSFET, the capacitor C3 also "detects" this. In this case, the capacitor C3 does not react and a voltage level of zero is present at pin 1 of the control unit via the signal path C3, RM1 and RM2. However, the signal path from capacitor C3 to pin 1 is not blocked or disabled in any way. It is not decoupled and any kind of voltage change across the switch/MOSFET would lead to a change in the voltage level at pin 1, regardless of whether the switch is open or closed. Legal consequences of the infringement action: The defendants are further of the opinion that the plaintiff requires an interest in a declaratory judgment for the findings pursuant to Article 64(2)(a) UPCA, which does not exist. Furthermore, the request for information is not justified and there is also no entitlement to the submission of documents; alternatively, these could only be made under the protection of a secrecy protection order. A claim for the disclosure of invoices was barred because the Rules of Procedure provided for a different procedure for the disclosure of the books. Furthermore, both a destruction claim and a recall claim are too far-reaching. As the potential for damage in the event of a conviction is considerable, it is necessary to order an enforcement security, with the value in dispute forming the lower limit for this. Counterclaim The defendants are of the opinion that the patent in suit is not new within the scope of claims 7 to 10 in view of the citations US 5, 576, 941 (Exhibit D3, Nguyen), EP 1 083 648 A2 (Exhibit D4, Lürkens), WO 2004/107 547 A1 (Exhibit D6, Melai) and US 2005/0207193 A1 (Exhibit D8, Adragena). Furthermore, in view of the citations US 5, 737,209 (Exhibit D5, Stevens), NCP 1601A (Exhibit D7, Onsemi) and WO 2003/017453 A1 (Exhibit D9, Green Power), DE 4 321 585 A1 (Exhibit D10, Samsung) and US 5,892,355 (Exhibit D12, Pan- sier), the patent in suit is also not based on inventive step. At the oral hearing, the defendants cited D7 (Onsemi) for the first time to attack the novelty and attacked the inventive step by a combination of D3 (Nguyen) and D4 (Lürkens). The plaintiff is of the opinion that claims 7 to 10 will prove to be valid. It criticizes the lateness of the new attacks on novelty and inventive step based on D7 (Onsemi) and D3 (Nguyen) with D4 (Lürkens). In the alternative, it defends the claims in the form of the seven auxiliary requests stated. Reasons The admissible action for infringement is not successful on the merits. The admissible counterclaim is also unfounded. 35 A. Admissibility of the action and the counterclaim The Düsseldorf Local Division has jurisdiction for the infringement action pursuant to Art. 33 (1) b) UPCA. Apart from this, the jurisdiction of the local division chosen by the plaintiff is deemed to be recognized in the absence of an objection by the defendant, see R. 19 (7) RP. There are also no concerns regarding the admissibility of the counterclaim. Pursuant to Art. 32 (1) (e) UPCA, the UPC has exclusive jurisdiction for counterclaims for revocation of (European) patents. Since there is currently no opt-out (Art. 83 (3) UPCA) from the exclusive jurisdiction of the court in relation to the patent in dispute in force, the UPC - as the common court of the member states of the UPCA - has international jurisdiction for the present counterclaim pursuant to Art. 24 (4), 71a (2) (a), 71b (1) of Regulation (EU) No. 1215/2012. B. Scope of protection of the patent in suit The patent in suit requires interpretation both with regard to the question of infringement and for the assessment of its validity. I. According to Art. 69 EPC in conjunction with the Protocol on its interpretation, the patent claim is not only the starting point, but the decisive basis for determining the scope of protection of a European patent. The interpretation of a patent claim does not solely on its exact wording in the linguistic sense. Rather, the description and the drawings must always be taken into account as explanatory aids for the interpretation of the patent claim and not only be used to resolve any ambiguities in the patent claim. However, this does not mean that the patent claim merely serves as a guideline and that its subject matter also extends to that which, after examination of the description and drawings, appears to be the patentee's request for protection (UPC CoA 335/2023, order of 26.02.2024 in conjunction with order of 11.03.2024). Order of 11.03.2024, GRUR-RS 2024, 2829, guiding principle 2. and para. 73 - 77 - 10x Genomics v. Nano- String; UPC COA 182/2024, order of 25.09.2024, para. 82 - Mammut v. Ortovox; see also UPC CFI 7/2024 (LD Düsseldorf), decision of 03.07.2024, ORD 598324/2023 - Franz Kal- dewei v. Bette). II. The patent in dispute is interpreted from the perspective of the relevant skilled person. In this case, she has a university degree in electrical engineering and several years of professional experience in the development of electronic circuits. III. The invention relates to a boost converter power factor correction circuit (so-called boost PFC circuit). This type of circuit is used to convert a supplied DC or AC voltage to higher fee. At the same time, the circuit can be designed to represent a load with a power factor of almost 1 (see paragraph [0002] of the patent in suit; in the following 36 paragraphs of the patent in suit without citing the source). The circuits are often in operating devices for light sources. If the light sources are to be operated at high frequency, the DC output voltage of the boost PFC is converted into a high-frequency AC voltage via inverters (paragraph [0003]). Since a boost PFC usually not short-circuit-proof, the operation of such a circuit is by control and regulation circuits to which parameters from the supply voltage, from the boost PFC circuit and/or the load circuit fed back. In the prior art, this feedback of the measurement parameters to the control and regulation unit means that numerous pins are used in an ASIC used as a control and regulation unit (see paragraph [0004]). Figure 1 of the patent in suit, shown below in slightly reduced form, shows a circuit known from the prior art. The AC or DC voltage Vin is supplied. The charging coil L1 is connected in series with a freewheeling diode D1. A connection point between the freewheeling diode D1 and the charging coil L1 can be selectively connected to earth via the switch M1. A charging capacitor C1 can be charged via the freewheeling diode D1. The output voltage VBus, which is regularly higher than the amplitude of the supplied voltage Vin, is on its high-potential side when the switch M1 is clocked accordingly (see [0006]). The supply voltage Vin and the current of the charging coil L1 are detected at the pins PVin and PVL1. detecting the current, the zero crossing of the current flowing through the charging coil can be determined (see section [0008]). Furthermore, the current flowing through the switch M1 in the closed state can be detected by means of a measuring resistor (shunt) R1 at a pin PIM1 (see section [0009]). Finally, the output voltage Vbus at a pin PVbus can also be detected via a voltage divider R7, R8 (paragraph [0010]). The patent in suit recognizes US 5 428 286 (= D1, Kha), which discloses a boost PFC circuit in which both the current flowing through the switch and the charging current are detected at different times, when the switch is open and when it is closed, at a measuring point or input between a diode and a capacitor. The boost PFC switch disclosed here operates in continuous conduction mode (CCM) (see section [0011]). The patent in suit mentions WO 01/82458 A1 (=D2; Philipps 01) as further prior art, which discloses an integrated circuit of an AC-DC converter at whose numerous inputs various parameters are tapped and processed. Among other things, a current through a charging coil of the converter is detected at a first input via an ohmic resistor RZC. Zero crossings are determined by the integrated circuit. In addition, an offset signal is created by a circuit and added to a signal at a seventh connection, which corresponds to a current through a switch of the converter. This sum signal is 37 recorded and evaluated at the seventh connection (see para. [0012]). The patent in suit does not explicitly criticize the prior art, but formulates its background the task of reducing the number of acquisition points for the measurement signals, e.g. the number of pins required for an ASIC as a control and regulation circuit. The patent in suit solves this problem with a boost converter power factor correction circuit comprising the features of claim 7. Claim 7 can be structured as follows: 7.1 Boost converter power factor correction circuit (boost PFC circuit), the circuit comprising: 7.1.1 a freewheeling diode (D1), 7.1.2 a charging coil (L1) connected in series with the freewheeling diode (D1), which creates a discharge current, 7.1.3 a switch (M1), 7.1.4 a charging capacitor (C1), which is charged with the discharge current by the controlled switch (M1), 7.1.5 an electronic control and/or regulation unit. 7.2 The switch (M1) can be switched on and off by the electronic control and/or regulation unit. 7.3 The electronic control and/or regulation unit detects at an input, 7.3.1 directly or indirectly the current through the switch (M1) during periods in which the switch (M1) is closed; 7.3.2 the zero crossing of the current flowing through the charging coil (L1) as a further operating parameter of the boost PFC circuit at times when the switch (M1) is open. 7.4 The circuit comprises a decoupling element for decoupling the detection of the switch current and detection of the zero crossing of the current flowing through the charging coil (L1). The core of the invention is to combine the signals of two operating parameters and thus save a pin on the control and/or regulation unit. Combining the function of switch current detection with the function of current zero crossing detection is possible because triggering of these functions (in a boost PFC circuit) is only required sequentially and never simultaneously (see para. [0015]). This combined detection at the same measuring point at different times is realized by using a coupling element or decoupling element. An embodiment example of a boost PFC circuit according to the claim is shown in the following, slightly reduced Figure 3 of the patent in suit (para. [0017]). 38 The circuit includes a freewheeling diode (D1), a charging coil (L1) connected in series with the freewheeling diode (D1), a switch (M1), a charging capacitor (C1) and an electronic control and/or regulation unit, of which only the one input PVL1, PVM1 is shown. The charging capacitor (C1) is charged by the controlled switch (M1) with a discharge current created by the charging coil (L1). The switch (M1) can be switched on and off by the electronic control and/or regulation unit. The electronic control and/or regulation unit directly or indirectly detects the current through the switch (M1) at an input during periods in which the switch (M1) is closed. The electronic control and/or regulation unit detects a further operating parameter of the boost PFC circuit in time periods in which the switch (M1) is open. The detected further operating parameter is the zero crossing of the current flowing through the charging coil (L1). The current is picked up inductively by the charging coil L1 via a detection coil L2 and a resistor R2. The inductive detection is separated from the one detection pin PVL1, PVM1 by a decoupling element, such as the diode D2 shown here (cf. para. [0025], [0034). IV. Feature group 7.3 and feature 7.4 require more detailed explanations in view of the parties' dispute. 1. Feature 7.3 - "one input" According to the wording of the claim, the electronic control and/or regulation unit detects the switch current and the discharge current of the charging coil L1 at "one" input. In principle, the wording of the claim in all three language versions allows both the numerical word "one" and the indefinite article to be understood ("at an input of the electronic control and/or regulation unit" or "l'unité de commande et/ou de régu- lation électronique permet, au niveau d'une entrée"). However, by looking at the claim as a whole and also taking into account the description and the examples of embodiments, the skilled person will understand the indication "at one input" as specifying the number of inputs, namely for a single input. The decoupling element within the meaning of feature 7.4 for decoupling the detection of both operating parameters would be obsolete if the detection were to take place at two different inputs. Furthermore, the patent in suit in paragraph [0033] of the description that both the current IM I through the closed switch M1 and the zero crossing of the current through the charging coil L1 are detected at a single point of the circuit PVLI, PIMI. 39 This single point can be easily recognized in Figure 3. Finally, the use of one input for two measurement signals represents the central core of the invention (para. [0017]). 2. Characteristic group 7.3 (record) a) By sensing in feature 7.3, the skilled person does not just mean merely tapping signals that are present. Detection means that the signals that reach the control and regulation unit at one input are measured and can be used for further processing (e.g. for controlling the switching process). In the context of electrical engineering and electronics, the pure literal meaning of the term "acquisition" can the purely passive signal acquisition for the skilled person, i.e. the acquisition or the release of a signal that is present at the input of a circuit. However, depending on the technical specification, the term can have different meanings and functions depending on the specific application context. Another possible technical meaning of "capture" is measurement and processing. A signal is actively measured, for example by voltage dividers, current transformers or sensors, and then further processed in the circuit. Typical applications include measuring the switch current via a measuring resistor or detecting a zero crossing of a current (e.g. due to inductance or voltage changes). Another possible technical meaning of "detection" is the comparison with reference values, i.e. the signal is not only recorded but also compared with defined reference values in order to detect states such as "too high" or "too low". A typical application is the detection of limit values in a control system. The second meaning can already be found in the wording of the claim. The control and/or regulation unit of the boost PFC circuit directly or indirectly detects the switch current and the zero crossing of the current flowing through the charging coil. According to the information in paragraph [0002], the boost PFC circuit within the meaning of the patent in suit is used to convert DC or AC voltage to a higher level at a power factor of approximately 1. The power factor describes the ratio of actual power (active power) to the total absorbed power (apparent power). By smoothing the current consumption, the current flow is adjusted so that it the course of the mains voltage sinusoidally. This improves the power factor and reduces the reactive power. In other words, a boost PFC circuit is used to improve the power factor of an electrical load and at the same time to smooth the current consumption by actively regulating the current flow. This active regulation is carried out by the control and/or regulation unit by which the switch M1 can be switched on and off (feature 7.2). Features 7.3.1 and 7.3.2 list the operating parameters that the regulation and/or control unit can use as a basis for switching the switch M1 on and off. In accordance with feature 7.3.1, the current through the switch is recorded. The switch current is the current that flows through the main switch, e.g. a MOSFET, of the boost PFC circuit. A precise measurement is necessary in order to determine the switch's switch-off point. Incorrect measurement of the switch current can lead to uncontrolled current peaks or 40 lead to overloads. The method proposed in the patent in suit for detecting the switch current, which is well known, is the measurement of the voltage via a measuring resistor connected in series with the switch (see Figure 1). It can be seen in particular in paragraphs [0009] and [0055]. "[0009] Furthermore, the current flowing through this switch M1 in the closed state of the switch M1 can be detected by means of a measuring resistor ("shunt") R1 at a pin PI M 1. [...] [0055] If, on the other hand, switch M1 is switched off, the freewheeling diode D1 is conductive. The charging coil then discharges via the freewheeling diode D1 into a charging capacitor C1, which the freewheeling diode D1 to earth and is exposed to an output voltage Vbus. A current measuring resistor (shunt) R1 in the source line of the switch M1 enables the current flowing through this switch M1 to be detected when the switch M1 is closed, for example to be able to determine a possible overcurrent condition." Furthermore, paragraphs [0020] and [0021] describe how the zero crossing of the current flowing through the charging coil is detected: "[0020] The zero crossing of the current flowing through the charging coil can be detected inductively, for example. [0021] The zero crossing of the current flowing through the charging coil can be determined by means of a detection coil inductively coupled to the charging coil by the fact that at the time of the zero crossing the voltage at the detection coil shows an edge. [...]" The control and/or regulation unit can switch the switch (M1) back on at the time of the zero crossing (section [0023]). The defendants rightly point out that claim 7 does not specify the concrete control measures which the regulation and/or control unit takes as a result of the further processing. The switching-on process of the switch M1 by the regulation and/or control unit is only the subject matter of sub-claim 9. Sub-claim 10 specifies a possible further processing step in more detail (comparison with a threshold value) and mentions the switching-off process. Nevertheless, when reading the feature group 7.2. and 7.3. the skilled person recognizes that the control unit controls the switch because it can switched on and off "by it". In this context, the skilled person also sees that the operating parameters mentioned can in any case also be used to control the switch, especially since the described durations are characterized by the state of the switch (open/closed). Precise detection of the zero crossing and switch current parameters enables optimum adaptation of the current consumption to the voltage, which improves the power factor. The precise detection of the signals can reduce switching losses, current peaks and component overloads. The example in paragraph [0045] also addresses the fact that the switch M1 is switched off at regular intervals, i.e. it can be switched on and off by the regulation and/or control unit within the meaning of feature 7.2. In particular, the skilled person recognizes that the detection and measurement of the switch current and zero-crossing current is carried by switching components arranged upstream of the input (pin) of the control unit (L2 and R2 for the zero crossing (para. [0032])/M1 and R1 for the switch current 41 (para. [00035]). b) In claim 7, the patent in suit does not specify how the switch current must be detected. Its design is left to the skilled person. This can be done directly or indirectly. The embodiments mentioned in the description and shown in the figures do not limit the broad wording of the claim. Insofar as paragraph [0035] states that the current IMI through the switch M1 can be measured at the point PVLI, PIMI via the measuring resistor R1, this is only one way of detecting the switch current. c) The claim also leaves the method of detecting the zero crossing to the skilled person. The inductive detection of the coil current via a detection coil L2 and a resistor R2 is also only one example (para. 0032]). Paragraph [0030] recognizes this type of detection as advantageous, but emphasizes that it need not be combined with a circuit as shown in Figure 3. Furthermore, the contested patent claim does not specify in more detail that the zero crossing is to be detected at a specific point in time. However, the skilled person will recognize from the explanations in paragraphs [0047] and [0048] and Figure 4 that the detection should take place immediately at the start of the zero crossing. If there is a slight time offset between the occurrence and detection of the zero crossing, this is not detrimental. The skilled person is aware that Figure 4 does not represent a real-time measurement, but is intended to illustrate signal curves at defined points of the circuit according to its general principle. The defendants also concede that the detection of the zero crossing occurs shortly after the zero crossing, as there are delays in every circuit due to the structure and signal routing alone. Contrary to the defendant's view, the patent in suit does not exclude the detection of the zero crossing on the basis of events immediately following it. According to the invention, a signal should arrive at the input of the control and regulation unit which allows the conclusion that no more discharge current is flowing through the charging coil L1. The wording of the claim allows for this signal to be created because other causalities are taken into account between the no longer flowing current, as long as they do not change the information to be detected in the signal "no more current is flowing". From the point of view of the person skilled in the art, who functionally has an optimum control of the circuit by the control unit in mind, any detection of the zero crossing at the one pin is in accordance with the invention, which still takes place in such a way in terms of time that it does not lead to any impairment of this control (e.g. the signal arrives so late at the pin that a large time loss occurs in the alternation between charging and discharging and thus the improvement of the power factor is reduced). Insofar as the defendants have argued for the first time in the duplicate that zero crossings would occur in CCM mode, the argumentation is not clear. In this mode, the switch is switched on before a zero crossing can occur. 3. Feature 7.4 (decoupling element) A decoupling element within the meaning of feature 7.4 is a separate component that capable of decoupling a signal 42 transmission via the signal path provided for current zero crossing detection when the switch is closed. The plaintiff rightly emphasizes that the situation in which the need for decoupling exists is that in which the switch is closed. This is because only in this state does the current flow from the charging coil L1 through the switch M1 and the switch current can be detected at one input of the control unit (ASIC). However, because the claim assumes a circuit structure due to which components continue to tap the coil current (in Figure 3 the detection coil L2 and the measuring resistor R2) and this signal is also conducted to one input of the control unit when the switch is closed, the signal must be isolated (in Figure 3 by blocking by means of diode D2) in order to be able to detect only the switch current at the one input of the control unit (in Figure 3 PVL1, PIM1). The decoupling element ensures that the signals do not interfere with each other. The wording of the claim does not specify any particular requirements for the spatial and physical design of the decoupling element. The component is functionally characterized in that it must be suitable for decoupling the detection of the switch current and the detection of the zero crossing of the current flowing through the charging coil. However, the person skilled in the art will take more detailed information from the general description as to how the decoupling function is to be achieved by the element. Paragraph [0017] states that the combined detection of the two signals at a measuring point is realized by means of potential separation. The potential separation is explained as "using a coupling element or decoupling element". Potential separation describes the so-called galvanic separation, in which two conductive objects that normally exchange current with each other are separated. In other words, this means that electrical conduction between two circuits between which power or signals are exchanged is avoided. A transmission of electrical signals does not take place or is interrupted by the separation. The embodiment example in Figure 3 describes diode D2 as the decoupling element. The argument here explains that, for example, by blocking the diode 2, the coil current detection is decoupled from the switch M2 so that the current through the switch can be measured in isolation (para. [0049]). Blocking the diode decouples the coil current detection from the switch. The function of the decoupling element described here is nothing other than the interruption of the current flow from the detection coil L2 to the input PVLI, PIM1. The patent in suit also mentions a non-exhaustive list of possible embodiments of a decoupling element, namely in addition to a diode, also transistors or a capacitive decoupling [para. 0049]. Here, too, the function of the possible components mentioned is equally cha- racterized: Comparable to the diode SD2, a or a capacitive decoupling can also be provided, which thus isolate the switch M1 from the potential of the detection coil L2 when it is switched on. All embodiments therefore provide for the principle of galvanic isolation, whereby capacitive isolation is merely a sub-case of galvanic isolation. Insofar as the plaintiff states that the components of capacitive decoupling typically include capacitors as passive electrical components, this is to be agreed with. However, according to the patent in dispute, the capacitors must be designed in such a way that they interrupt the electrical signal path from the input of the regulation and/or control unit to the component which detects the coil current. Attenuation or reduction of the signal is not sufficient, but complete isolation is required. The purpose of decoupling is to ensure that only one 43 signal can be transmitted in isolation. High-pass filters, for example, in which parts of the signal can be passed through, cannot guarantee 100% protection of the signal path against interference from the other signal. Depending on the chosen design of the circuit, exceptional situations that should almost never occur could then occur more frequently. This possibility is a different situation from the one envisaged by the patent in suit. There no indications of any other understanding of decoupling in the patent in suit. Both the general description and all examples of embodiments unanimously require potential isolation. Insofar as capacitive decoupling mentioned, the patent in suit expressly describes this only in the potential isolation variant (see para. [0049]). Since the capacitor is a possible component that can be used for capacitive decoupling, then, according to the specification of the patent in suit, only in such a way that the potential of the components that tap the coil current (in Figure 3 the detection coil L2 and the measuring resistor R2) is completely separated from the switch by the use of the capacitor. This is also not a narrowing interpretation to an embodiment example, but the skilled person sees the embodiment example in the context of paragraph [0017] of the general description. It is not apparent that attenuating the signal or similar would be for the sophisticated decoupling function. This is also because the precise detection of the zero-crossing and switch current parameters is a functional prerequisite for optimum adaptation of the current consumption to the voltage and thus for improving the power factor. This is additionally supported by the fact that both parameters only occur sequentially and never simultaneously (see section [0015]). The decoupling is intended to avoid any interference with the respective signal path. In contrast, it cannot be inferred from the patent in suit at any point that it accepts less precise detection and thus losses or inaccuracies in the power factor correction in favor of saving a pin on the control and/or feedback unit. To the extent that the plaintiff's party expert advocates a broader understanding, according to which it is already sufficient that the decoupling element must only ensure that the voltage applied to the coil L2 does not influence the voltage at the input of the control unit and must keep variables other than the coil current away from the input of the control unit (see Exhibit K16, p. 6 f.), he does not cite any substantiated information from the patent in suit to support this view. C. validity The counterclaim is unfounded because the subject matter of the patent in suit is new and inventive and thus the patent in suit proves to be legally valid. I. New attacks on validity in the oral proceedings. Insofar as the defendants based a novelty attack on the D7 (Onsemi) and an inventive step attack on a combination of the D3 (Nguyen) and the D4 (Lürkens) for the first time at the oral hearing, these attacks are not considered. Insofar as this may be regarded as an amendment of the action pursuant to R. 263 of the Rules of Procedure, this is not permissible under R. 265 (2)(a), (b) VerfO must be rejected. Firstly, the defendants should have raised these attacks at the latest in the reply to the counterclaim if they had exercised due diligence (for dismissal even on first filing of the counterclaim). 44 in the replica UPC CFI 265/2023, CD Paris, judgment of July 29, 2024, para. 23 et seq.), on the other hand, they unreasonably hinder the plaintiff in its conduct of the proceedings. If the procedure is not regarded as an amendment to the action, but as an additional argument for the destruction of the patent in dispute, it must nevertheless be dismissed in accordance with R. 9.2 VerfO. The essential arguments must be introduced into the proceedings as early as possible within the statutory time limits. Strategic tactics aimed at a surprise effect are just as alien to the Rules of Procedure as the introduction of completely new means of attack due to the statement of a merely preliminary assessment by the court at the beginning of the oral proceedings, especially since this is not done uniformly in the UPC. II. Novelty A technical teaching is new if it deviates from the prior art in at least one of the known features. Only that which is directly apparent to a skilled person familiar with the respective technical field from the publication or prior use is anticipated in the prior art. Knowledge that a skilled person only gains due to further considerations or the consultation of further writings or uses is not prior art (see UPC CFI 452/2023 (LK Düsseldorf), order of 09.04.2024 - Ortovox v. Mammut; UPC CFI 7/2024 (LK Düsseldorf), decision of 03.07.2024 - Kaldewei v. Bette). 1. D3 (Nguyen) The citation does not show a direct and unambiguous disclosure of the features 7.3, 7.3.2 and 7.4. D3 describes the averaging of currents in a boost converter circuit. Diodes are used for signal processing. Insofar as it is disputed whether the CCM mode comprises zero crossings or not, the court with the plaintiff's argumentation. It rightly points out that in this mode the charging coil never reaches the value 0 because the current flows continuously or because the switch is switched on (again) before the zero crossing. Smoothing is irrelevant in this context. The circuit disclosing the D3 is not designed to provide precise, separate detection switch current and zero crossing at one and the same input. Figure 9 shows two signals at the input IF: The switch current through the MOSFET 148, which has been converted into a voltage and transformed by the measuring resistor 141and the diode current through the diode 138, which has been converted into a voltage and transformed by the measuring resistor 141. It is not clear to the skilled person why a zero crossing of the coil current should be detected here. As explained, the CCM mode comprises no zero crossings. A zero- crossing detection is therefore neither shown in Figure 9 nor in the associated description in column 9, lines 32-60. In particular, the skilled person does not recognize that the signals are detected at an input of the control and regulation unit 150 for controlling the switch. Thus, the phase-controlled windings 136 and 146 each supply a signal that is fed to the DRIVE line 152. The opposite ends of the windings 136 and 146 are connected to 45 coupled together to provide an output for the feedback current input IF via the coupling line 158. The signals are therefore transmitted to two inputs. Finally, due to the lack of detection of a zero crossing, the diodes 154 and 156 cannot be assigned the function of a decoupling element. 2. D4 (Lürkens) D4 describes the current measurement with a measuring resistor and the separation of signals by specific circuit components. There is no disclosure of the detection at an input of the control unit (Note 7.3). Paragraph [0019] and Figure 2 disclose that the switch current is detected and the connection CS of the control unit is used to switch off the switch S. Paragraphs [0030] and [0031] show the skilled person that the ZVS operation, the switching of the switch S at a switch voltage of almost zero volts, is used. However, the inputs ZVZCS and CS are two different inputs of the control unit 6. By not disclosing a double assignment of an input, no decoupling element (feature 7.4) is directly and unambiguously disclosed. 3. D6 (Melai) D6 describes DC-DC converter which, due to its high power factor, is suitable for use in an electronic ballast circuit for supplying a lamp. As shown in Figure 1 of D6 reproduced below, which was submitted by the defendants with color highlighting as Exhibit D6a the input terminals K1 and K2 are connected to the respective output terminals of a rectifier whose input is connected to the mains for connection to a supply voltage source that supplies a DC voltage. The DC voltage applied to the input terminals K1 and K2 has the form of a rectified sine wave. The input terminals K1 and K2 are connected in series by the inductive element L1, the switching element S1 46 and the ohmic resistor R1. The series connection of switching element S1 and ohmic resistor R1 is bridged by a series connection of diode D1 and capacitor C1. An output connection K3 is connected to a common connection of the diode D1 and the capacitor C1. A series circuit consisting of the secondary winding L2, the capacitor C2 and the ohmic resistor R4 is connected between the input terminal K2 and a control electrode of the switching element S1. The secondary winding L2 is magnetically coupled to the inductive element L1. An input/output connection G/ZCD of the integrated switching circuit IG is connected to the control electrode of the switching element S1. The input/output connection G/ZCD is to the output of a current source Istart. A switching element S2 is connected between the control electrode of the switching element S1 and the input connection K2. D6 thus discloses a common input and output connection (G/ZCD) for controlling the switch and recording operating parameters. However, neither feature 7.3.2 nor feature 7.4 are directly and clearly evident here either. The defendants themselves state (Exhibit WKS 4; expert opinion) that a zero crossing of the charging coil current leads to a change in the voltage ripple (du/dt value) of the output voltage, but that detection is very complex in terms of measurement technology and also depends on the filter effect of the low-pass filter. In the case of assumed dynamic loads on the PFC circuit, a clear detection of the zero crossing is not possible. Thus, there is no disclosure of a detection at the OVP connection. Furthermore, the plaintiff must agree that the superimposed voltage signals serve to monitor an overvoltage, but not to control the switching process. Furthermore, the information on p. 4, lines 3-14, which describes the circuit at input G/ZCD, does not contain any indications of decoupling. 4. D8 (Adragena) The defendants - who have the burden of proof in this respect - do not explain comprehensibly why the current mirror should constitute a decoupling element. It is not clear why a current mirror should be able to decouple two signals. III. Inventive activity 1. Scale According to Art. 56 EPC, an invention is considered to involve an inventive step if it is not obvious to a person skilled in the art from the prior art. According to the Munich Central Division (UPC CFI 1/2023 (CD Munich), decision of 16.07.2024 - Sanofi v. Amgen), which the Düsseldorf Local Division has already endorsed in past decisions (UPC CFI 363/2023, decision of 10.10.2024, ORD 598458/2023 - Seoul Viosys v. expert), the examination of inventive step always requires an assessment on a case-by-case basis, taking into account all relevant facts 47 and circumstances. An objective approach must be taken. The subjective ideas of the applicant or inventor are irrelevant. Only what the claimed invention actually contributes to the state of the art is relevant. The inventive step is to be assessed from the point of view of the person skilled in the art, who may also be called a skilled person, on the basis of the entire state of the art, including general technical knowledge. It must be assumed that the skilled person had access to the entire generally accessible prior art at the relevant time. The decisive factor is whether the claimed subject-matter is derived from the prior art in such a way that the skilled person would have found it on the basis of his knowledge and skills, e.g. by obvious modifications of what is already known. In order to assess whether or not a claimed invention was obvious to a skilled person, it is first necessary to determine a starting point in the prior art. Reasons must be given as to why the skilled person would consider a certain part of the prior art to be a realistic starting point. A starting point is realistic if its teaching would have been of interest to a skilled person who, at the priority date of the patent in suit, was seeking to develop a product or process similar to that disclosed in the prior art, i.e. having a similar basic problem to the claimed invention (see UPC CoA 335/2024, order of 26.02.2024, p. 34 - Nanostring v. 10x Genomics, at "cc" in the original German version, "For a skilled person who faced with the task at the priority date of the patent in suit, [...] D6 was of interest"). There may be several rea- listic starting points, whereby it is not necessary to determine the "most promising" starting point. If the claimed subject-matter is compared with the prior art after interpretation, the question arises whether it would have been obvious for the skilled person to arrive at the claimed solution on the basis of a disclosure of the prior art which is to be regarded as a realistic starting point in view of the underlying problem. If it was not obvious to arrive at this solution, the claimed subject-matter fulfills the requirements of Article 56 EPC. In general, a claimed solution is obvious if, based on the prior art, the skilled person would be motivated (i.e. would have an incentive, see the CoA in NanoString v. 10x Genomics, p. 34) to consider the claimed solution and take the next step ("next step", see UPC CoA 335/2024, order of 26.02.2024, p. 35, second paragraph - Nanostring v. 10x genomics) in the development of the prior art. On the other hand, it may be relevant whether the skilled person would have anticipated particular difficulties in performing the next step or steps. Depending on the facts and circumstances of the case, it may be permissible to subject disclosures from the prior art to an overall assessment. technical effect or advantage by the claimed subject-matter compared to the prior art may an indication of inventive step. A feature arbitrarily selected from several possibilities cannot generally contribute to inventive step. A retrospective view must be avoided. The question of inventive step should not be answered by searching retrospectively for ("combined") prior art disclosures from which this solution could be derived, when the patented subject-matter or the patented solution is known. 2. Technical problem and task As presented, the patent in suit does not explicitly criticize the prior art, but formulates against its background in paragraphs [0013] and [0014] the technical problem of reducing the number of 48 The aim is to reduce the number of acquisition points for the measurement signals in order to reduce the number of pins required for an ASIC as a control and regulation circuit. The task underlying the patent in suit is therefore to reduce the number of detection points, i.e. the required pins, of a control and regulation circuit in a boost PFC circuit that operates in zero- crossing mode. 3. D5 (Stevens) in combination with D3, D4 and D6 D5 deals with the technical problem of providing a device that is connected between the power source of the power grid and an electrical consumer in order to limit the energy demand of the electrical consumer to its average demand. This eliminates the need for the electricity grid to cover the consumer's peak power demand. According to the information in column 3, lines 33 to 60, the device described in D5 is further intended to ensure that an uninterruptible power supply provided in the event of a failure of the power grid, that no harmonics of the grid frequency are reflected back to the power line as a result of the energy consumption, that the power factor of the load on the power line is maintained at or near unity and that the crest factor of the current is at or near 1.414 comparable to a sine wave. As shown in Figure 4 of D5, reproduced below, which was submitted by the defendants with color highlighting as Exhibit D5a, and can be seen from the information in column 6, lines 4 to 25, the capacitor 73 is charged via the line 40 and the resistor 65 when the power supply is switched on for the first time. This supplies the control chip 63 with operating current at a clip 68. The control chip 63 is designed in such a way that it only draws current when the capacitor 73 has reached a predetermined voltage. This allows the resistor 65 to have a high value and low power, as the operating current for the control chip 63 is not dissipated through it. As soon as the capacitor 73 is sufficiently charged to maintain operation, the switching process is initiated so that the secondary winding of the coil 78 can supply the capacitor 73 and other parts of the circuit with operating current via the diode 67. D5 is clearly not concerned with the problem underlying the patent in suit. Insofar as the 49 skilled person D5 as a realistic starting point, it does not disclose the detection of the zero crossing of the coil current (feature 7.3.2) at the same input as the detection of the switch current (feature 7.3.1). With regard to the task of reducing the number of detection points (required pins) of a control and regulation circuit in a boost PFC circuit that operates in zero- crossing mode, it is not clear why the skilled person should have an incentive to change the circuit design based on D5. The control chip installed in the D5 only designed to record the operating parameters at different inputs. It is not clear what incentive the skilled person should have to replace the different inputs with one input. Even if one assumes with the defendants that the skilled person always strives for convenience in the construction of circuits, it is not apparent what information the skilled person could take from D5 in order to arrive at the solution according to the invention. The skilled person already lacks any reason to subject D5 to a combined examination with one of the printed documents D3, D4 and D6. As presented, the diodes 154 and 156 known from D3 do not detect a zero crossing, so that the function of a decoupling element cannot be attributed to them. D4 does not reveal any double assignment of an input, which is why no decoupling element within the meaning of the patent in suit is disclosed either. Although D6 discloses a common input and output terminal G/ZCD for controlling the switch and detecting operating parameters, it does not indicate that the zero crossing of the current flowing through the charging coil is detected as an operating parameter of the boost PFC circuit during the periods in the switch is open (feature 7.3.2), and consequently also not to a decoupling element for decoupling the detection of the switch current and the detection of the zero crossing of the current flowing through the charging coil (feature 7.4). Therefore, the skilled person would not have arrived at the subject-matter of claim 7 of the patent in suit in an obvious way even if the disclosure of D5 were considered together with one or even more of D3, D4 and D6. 4. D7 (Onsemi) in combination with D3, D4 and D6 D7 describes the electronic component NCP1601, which is a controller developed for power factor correction (PFC) circuits. The controller operates in Discontinuous Conduction Mode (DCM) with a fixed frequency and in Critical Conduction Mode (CRM) with a variable frequency and utilizes the advantages of both operating modes. DCM limits the maximum switching frequency. This simplifies the design of the upstream EMI filters. CRM limits the maximum currents of the diodes, MOSFETs and inductances of the boost stage. The power factor of the controller is equal to 1 in DCM and CRM mode. The controller is designed to minimize the number of external components required and has high safety features that make it suitable for robust and compact PFC stages. A typical circuit diagram for the use of the NCP1601 controller, which was submitted by the plaintiffs with color highlighting as Exhibit D7a, is reproduced below. 50 There is no reference to a decoupling element within the meaning of the patent in dispute either in the circuit diagram or elsewhere in D7. It is therefore irrelevant whether D7 was published prior to the priority date, which is disputed between the parties, and should therefore be considered as prior art. Even if one wanted to assume this in favor of the defendant, it is not apparent where the skilled person - avoiding a retrospective view from the perspective of the patent in dispute - should have an incentive to implement a double assignment of a pin. Even if an incentive is assumed, it appears questionable how an implementation in the circuit should lead to a decoupling element according to the invention. As already explained, citations D3, D4 and D6 do not show any decoupling elements within the meaning of the patent in suit. Thus, the skilled person will also not reach the subject- matter of claim 7 of the patent in suit in an obvious manner if D7 is considered together with one or even more of the printed documents D3, D4 and D6. 5. D9 (Green Power) with D3, D4 and D6 D9 describes a method for implementing an APFC converter that forces the system to remain in Borderline Conduction Mode (BCM) without sampling the voltage at the input of the converter. D9 also describes that, with a small adjustment, the control methods can also be used for APFC converters that in CCM mode, as can be seen from the information on page 16, last paragraph of D9. As shown in Figure 9 of D9 reproduced below, which was submitted by the defendants with color highlighting as Exhibit D9a and shows the structure of an embodiment in BCM mode, and can be seen from the information on page 25, 51 two current sources feed a capacitor (Cc) 96, namely an independent current source 91, which creates current, and a dependent current source 92, which a current proportional to iina. The dependent current source 92 is controlled by the voltage at the measuring resistor RS through which iina flows. The current source 91 is connected to the capacitor 96 via a switch 93 (SW), which is conductive during the time TOFF. The signal Doff for the time TOFF and the complementary signal DON are created by a flip-flop 94 (FF). The flip-flop 94 is set and reset by two comparators. The comparator Comp1 creates a reset signal when the capacitor voltage falls below a reference voltage. The flip-flop 94 is set when the input current drops to zero. An independent oscillator 95 (OSC) is used initiate and/or trigger the circuit at startup or in the event of a stall, i.e. resumption of normal operation. Oscillator 95 is inactive during normal operation because its frequency is constant and lower than the frequency of the signal at the output of flip-flop 94, whose signal resets oscillator 95. However, D9 does not disclose a common input. Flip-flop 94 in D9 receives signals from two separate inputs (R and S). There is no common detection. In this respect, D9 does not give the skilled person any indication of a decoupling element within the meaning of the patent in suit which could separate signals. The skilled person thus does not reach the subject-matter of claim 7 of the patent in suit in an obvious way, even if D9 is considered together with one or even more of the printed documents D3, D4 and D6. 6. D6 (Malei) taking into account the common general knowledge In any event, in view of the above interpretation of the patent in suit, D6 is not capable of disclosing a decoupling element according to the invention in the light of common general knowledge. 52 7. D10 (Samsung) with D12 (Pansier) Even if one assumes an incentive for the skilled person - which is not apparent to the court - it is not sufficiently presented by the defendant to what extent a synopsis of the writings shows all the features of claim 7 at issue. 8. D3 in the context of inventive step Insofar as the defendant wants the statements on D3 in the replica to be understood as a further attack on the fee of the invention, it is already questionable whether this is not already late (see replica UPC CFI 265/2023, CD Paris, judgment of July 29, 2024, para. 23 et seq.). Apart from this, there is a lack of clarity in the submission as well as a lack of substantiation. IV. Subclaims 8 to 10 Since claim 7 is novel and inventive, so are the dependent subclaims 8 to 10. V. Auxiliary requests for amendment of the patent in suit Since the motion to dismiss is already successful with regard the disputed claim of the plaintiff, the plaintiff's auxiliary motions on the counterclaim are no longer relevant to the decision. D. infringement The infringement action is not successful on the merits because the attacked embodiment does not realize feature 7.4 of the patent in suit. Since this feature is already lacking, no further comments on the further features are required for lack of relevance to the decision. The chamber is not able to recognize that the capacitor C3 in the present case causes a complete separation of the signal path for measuring the zero crossing in the attacked embodiment, so that no more signals are transmitted to the measurement input pin 1 of the controller U1 (ASIC). It is undisputed between the parties that in the case of the closed switch, voltage signals from the signal path intended for current zero crossing detection are present at pin 1 of the controller U1 (ASIC). The capacitor is connected in between and it passes on voltage changes at the switch, namely any voltage change that creates a current in the capacitor. Both the capacitor C3 with resistors R5 and R8 and the resistors R10A- D are permanently connected to the same pin of the control unit without interruption. The pin 53 of the control unit receives a signal from the current flowing through the capacitor C3 even when the switch is closed. The attacked embodiment takes advantage of the fact that the measurement signal from capacitor C3 that results when the switch is open occurs when the switch is open and thus not at the same time as the actual measurement signal for the current flowing through the switch. According to the defendant, the measurement signal from capacitor C3 forms such a clear peak when the switch is closed and therefore its voltage rises very quickly that the control unit can deal with this and the simultaneous information on the current via the switch. Nevertheless, both "measuring units" - capacitor C3 with resistors R5, R8 and 10 and resistors R10A-D - are always continuously connected to the control unit at one pin. The plaintiff merely states here that the voltage changes only slightly at best when switch Q 1 is closed and that either no current or only a very small current flows, which is too weak to distort the switch current signal arriving at the input at the same time. The capacitor thus does not meet the requirements of the decoupling element according to the patent in suit within the meaning of feature 7.4. According to the previously explained interpretation of the scope of protection, the patent in suit understands decoupling to mean complete separation, so that only one current signal arrives at one pin of the control unit at a time. This is not the case with the attacked embodiment because the capacitor reacts to every voltage change across the switch and then applies a voltage level via the signal path, regardless of whether the switch is open or closed. E. Basic cost decision Pursuant to Art. 69 para. 1 UPCA in conjunction with. R. 118.5 of the Rules of Procedure, a basic decision on costs had to be made. Since the plaintiff is unsuccessful in its action for infringement in its entirety, it must bear the costs in this respect. Since the defendants are unsuccessful in full with regard to the counterclaim, it is justified to order them to pay the costs in full and to each pay half of the costs. Pursuant to Art. 69 para. 1 of the Rules of Procedure, the costs are to be borne up to an upper limit set in accordance with the Rules of Procedure. With a value in dispute of EUR 1,000,000 (action and counterclaim), the table adopted by the administrative exclusion on April 24, 2023 on the basis of R. 152.2 of the Rules of Procedure provides for an upper limit for the recoverable costs of up to EUR 112,000, which was to be set in the present case. 54 DECISION: I. The action is dismissed. II. The action for annulment is dismissed. III. Orders the plaintiff to the costs of the infringement proceedings. The defendants shall each bear half of the costs of the counterclaim. IV. The value in dispute for the action and the action for annulment is set at EUR 500,000.00 each. V. The upper limit of the reimbursable representation costs for the action and the action for annulment is set at a total of EUR 112,000.00. DETAILS OF THE ARRANGEMENT: Main file reference ACT 590302/2024 and CC 16360/2024 UPC number: UPC CFI 459/2023 Type of proceedings: Action for infringement and action for annulment Düsseldorf on March 7, 2025 NAMES AND SIGNATURES Anna Bérénice Dr. THOM Digitally signed by Anna Bérénice Dr. THOM Date: 2025.03.06 19:56:25 +01'00' Sabine Maria Klepsc h Digitally signed by Sabine Maria Klepsch Date: 2025.03.06 20:05:37 +01'00' Peter Juul Digitalt signeret af Peter Juul Agergaard Agergaar d Legally qualified judge Dr. Thom Presiding Judge Klepsch Legally qualified judge Agergaard 55 Dato: 2025.03.06 20:09:22 +01'00' 56 Christoph Dominik Schober 2025.03.06 20:14:19 +01'00' HEIKE BETTIN A ELVIRA Strysio Digitally signed by HEIKE BETTINA ELVIRA Strysio Date: 2025.03.07 06:35:30 +01'00' APPOINTMENT INFORMATION: An appeal against the present decision may be lodged with the Court of Appeal by any party which has been unsuccessful in whole or in part with its requests within two months of service of the decision (Art. 73 para. 1 UPCA, R. 220.1 (a), 224.1 (a) RP). Information on enforcement (Art. 82 UPCA, Art. 37 para. 2 EPGS, R. 118.8, 158.2, 354, 355.4 RP): A certified copy of the enforceable judgment is issued by the Deputy Registrar at the request of the enforcing party, R. 69 RegR. This decision was announced at a public meeting on March 7, 2025. Legally qualified judge Dr. Thom Anna Bérénic e Digitally signed by Anna Bérénice Dr. THOM Date: 2025.03.07 10:01:27 +01'00' Dr. THOM Technically qualified judge Schober For the Deputy Chancellor Strysio

Key Holdings

• New attacks on validity made only during oral proceedings are not to be taken into account, as strategic tactics aimed at surprise effects are alien to the Rules of Procedure.
• The term 'one input' in claim 7 is interpreted as a single input, emphasizing the invention's core of combining signals to save a pin on the control unit.
• The term 'detection' in feature 7.3 means active measurement and processing of signals for further use (e.g., controlling switching), not merely passive signal acquisition.
• A 'decoupling element' in feature 7.4 must provide complete galvanic isolation, interrupting electrical conduction between circuits, rather than merely attenuating signals, to ensure isolated signal transmission.
• The admissible action for infringement is not successful on the merits, and the admissible counterclaim for revocation is also unfounded.

Tags

• Amendment of Claim
• Claim Construction
• Infringement
• Late Submissions
• Revocation
• Rules of Procedure

Related Rules

• Art. 6 – The Court
• Art. 6 – The Court
• Art. 3 – Scope of application
• Art. 3 – Scope of application
• Art. 2 – Definitions
• Art. 7 – The Court of First Instance
• Art. 7 – The Court of First Instance

Related Cases

• UPC CFI 463/2023 – 10x Genomics, Inc. v Curio Bioscience Inc.
• UPC_CFI_1325/2025 – Van Loon v Inverquark
• UPC_CFI_115/2024; UPC_CFI_377/2024 – Hartman v Omni-Pac
• UPC_CFI_181/2025_July23 – Qiagen v bioMérieux
• UPC_CFI_315/2024 – Labrador v bioMérieux