EPO Board Rules on Claim Ambiguity, US Jury Awards $5.72B Patent Damages to Taction, and UPC Grants Interim Relief to Oxford Nanopore

The latest edition of the Irides Weekly Update presents significant patent litigation developments from the European Patent Office (EPO), the United States, and the Unified Patent Court (UPC).

On 30 July 2026, the EPO Technical Board of Appeal (TBA) overturned an earlier Opposition Division decision regarding European Patent EP 3288403, owned by Philip Morris Products S.A. The patent concerns a cartridge for an aerosol-generating system. The TBA addressed critical issues involving claim interpretation, implicit disclosure, and the relationship between claim ambiguity and added matter under Article 123(2) EPC.

During oral proceedings, the patentee amended Claim 12 of the Main Request by submitting Auxiliary Request 1, which included the phrase: “fixing a heater assembly comprising at least one heater element to the open end of the housing so that it extends across the opening of the housing.” The respondent, Nicoventures Trading Limited, contended that the pronoun “it” was ambiguous, as it could refer either to the heater assembly or the heater element.

The TBA found that both interpretations were technically plausible and that the ambiguity could not be resolved solely through claim interpretation. Importantly, the Board rejected the idea that unresolved ambiguities leave claim interpretation open or undecided. Instead, it held that such ambiguities broaden the claim’s scope to encompass all reasonable interpretations.

This broader interpretation proved problematic under Article 123(2) EPC. While one interpretation was supported by the original application, the other was not. Because the claim, as broadly construed, covered subject matter not directly and unambiguously derivable from the initial disclosure, the amendment was found to add matter, violating EPC requirements.

The Board explicitly questioned prior authority suggesting ambiguities should first be resolved before assessing added matter compliance. It emphasized that claim interpretation must precede this assessment and that ambiguities can expand claim scope, potentially leading to added matter issues.

In the United States, on 25 September 2026, a jury in the Southern District of California ruled in favor of Taction against Apple in Case No. 21-CV-812 TWR (JLB). The jury found that Apple infringed two US patents and rejected Apple’s invalidity defenses, awarding Taction $5.72 billion in damages. However, the jury did not find Apple’s infringement to be wilful.

Prior to trial, on 3 September 2026, the Court denied Apple’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of wilful infringement. Apple argued that, with certain evidence excluded, Taction’s claim of wilfulness rested solely on Apple’s continued sales of accused products after suit was filed. The Court clarified that wilfulness does not require “egregious” conduct but rather deliberate or intentional infringement, a factual question for the jury.

The Court found that Taction presented sufficient evidence to proceed to trial, including Apple’s ongoing product launches post-suit, failure to adopt non-infringing alternatives, and internal handling of the patents.

Turning to Europe, on 15 September 2026, the Munich Local Division of the Unified Patent Court granted Oxford Nanopore Technologies interim relief against MGI regarding two patents related to nanopore sequencing technology and MGI’s Cyclone sequencing platform (UPC_CFI_2307/2026).

Oxford’s case relied on examination of a Cyclone device and associated software, which allegedly demonstrated the patented sensor architecture. The Court noted MGI failed to provide substantive technical rebuttal and, applying Rule 171.2 of the Rules of Procedure, treated Oxford’s evidence as established.

Regarding the second patent, Oxford presented experimental evidence and technical inferences about hydrophobic membrane anchors. The Court dismissed MGI’s argument that it lacked knowledge of its system’s operation, emphasizing that as an importer of the accused products into Germany, MGI was expected to investigate potential patent infringement.

The Court also considered admissions of infringement by a related entity in parallel Australian proceedings as supporting the likelihood of infringement.

The Court found sufficient evidence of direct infringement by MGI, including a YouTube video showing a Cyclone device at MGI’s Berlin premises and evidence of MGI’s European customer experience center. MGI did not dispute that the device was imported into Germany and stored for commercial purposes, so these facts were accepted as established.

The presence of the device and MGI’s role as a European commercial hub created an imminent threat of further infringing activities, such as marketing, demonstrations, and customer use.

Finally, the Court attributed activities by MGI and three related respondents based in China to MGI under the common design doctrine, citing overlapping ownership, management, marketing, and scientific collaboration.