LD Milan, May 5, 2026, Decision, UPC_CFI_727/2024

Prosecution file statements before the EPO, while not binding, may guide claim interpretation as reflecting the skilled person’s view (Art. 69 EPC, Art. 24(1)(c) UPCA)

The claimant’s own statement during EPO grant proceedings — that abutment of a rolling body row against an edge was “essential” for achieving simultaneous preloading — confirmed the Court’s strict interpretation of the relevant claim feature. The Court followed established CoA jurisprudence (CoA Nos. 402/2024, 405/2024; CoA Nos. 534/2024, 19/2025) on the interpretive relevance of prosecution history.

Strict claim construction can be decisive for both validity and non-infringement simultaneously (Art. 69 EPC, Art. 24(1)(c) UPCA)