Appeal Decision

1. The interpretation of a patent claim is a matter of law. Therefore, the Court cannot leave the judicial task of interpreting the patent claim to an expert but has to construe the claim independently. 2. The skilled person is a notional entity that cannot be equated with any real person in the technical field of the invention. The decisive factor is not the individual knowledge and abilities of a person, but rather the general specialist knowledge that is customary in the relevant field of technology, as well as the average knowledge, experience, and abilities in this specialist field. It is for the Court, not the expert, to assess these circumstances. 3. In general, the risk of the continuation of the infringement arises from a prior infringement, if the infringer does not issue a cease-and-desist declaration with a sufficient penalty clause. 4. If one party is partially unsuccessful, the costs do not always have to be apportioned proportionately. In particular where a party's unsuccessful claim was relatively minor and did not cause further costs, its entire costs may be awarded against the other party.

Person skilled in the art, Cost decision if a party succeeds only in part (Art. 69(2) UPCA), Continuation of infringement (Art. 62(1) UPCA), Claim construction – expert opinion