AIM Sport Development v TGI Sport Suomi (CFI, UPC_CFI_214/2023, 29 April 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By decision of 29 April 2026, given in infringement action UPC_CFI_214/2023 and counterclaim for revocation UPC_CFI_403/2025, the Helsinki Local Division dismisses both: AIM Sport Development AG’s patent EP 3 295 663 is upheld as granted, but TGI Sport’s SVB System infringes it neither literally nor by equivalence. The decision matters on two counts. In the absence of Court of Appeal case law on equivalence, the division, for the sake of legal certainty, adopts the criteria relied on by both parties and already applied by other divisions, and holds them to be cumulative: a lack of technical equivalence is enough to dispose of the claim (paragraphs 170 to 174 and 182). On costs, it sets a ceiling per action and makes the burden turn on the final outcome of each action, without charging AIM Sport with the interim appeal it won on the preliminary objection (paragraphs 194 to 200).

Facts and procedure

The patent concerns digitally overlaying one image with another, in practice replacing the advertising shown on LED boards in broadcast images. Only method claim 12 was asserted. The action and an application for provisional measures were filed on 5 July 2023. The Helsinki Local Division first declined jurisdiction (written decision of 20 October 2023), the Court of Appeal set that decision aside on 12 November 2024 and referred the case back. AIM Sport Development AG having replaced AIM Sport Vision AG on 26 February 2024 and the amendment of the claim having been allowed on 11 February 2025, TGI filed a defence and a counterclaim for revocation of the patent in its entirety on 12 May 2025, and AIM Sport applied to amend the patent on 12 July 2025. The oral hearing took place on 20 March 2026.

The applicable law

The division construes the claim in the light of the description and drawings (Article 69 EPC and its Protocol), assesses validity for added matter (Articles 123(2) and 138(1)(c) EPC), novelty (Article 54 EPC) and inventive step (Article 56 EPC), and then infringement of the method under Article 25(b) UPCA. Costs follow Article 69(1) UPCA and the scale of ceilings.

Question

Is the patent valid, and does the SVB System, which detects the presence of the board by applying thresholds to infrared brightness, implement feature 12.5, which requires the occluding object to be detected on the basis of an image property?

Decision

On validity, the division rejects the added matter objection (paragraphs 56 to 67), finds claim 12 novel over Rantalainen and Nevatie (paragraphs 68 to 95) and inventive (paragraphs 96 to 135), so that the patent is valid as granted and the auxiliary requests need not be examined (paragraph 136). On infringement, an “image property” is an intrinsic characteristic of the occluding object, independent of external factors. Pixel brightness alone does not qualify (paragraph 49). The SVB System, in single or dual channel mode, detects the board through an artificial signature defined by thresholds, and the decision to replace a pixel does not follow from any detection of the occluding object (paragraphs 161 to 165). There is therefore no literal infringement (paragraph 166). On equivalence, technical equivalence is lacking: the SVB System develops prior art board detection rather than adopting the approach of the patent (paragraphs 179 to 182). The requests concerning the AIR System fall away, since the parties agree that they depend on infringement by the SVB System (paragraphs 185 and 186), and the new request for provisional measures, filed just before the hearing without any alleged change of circumstances, is inadmissible (paragraphs 187 and 188). The value of each action is set at EUR 15 million, AIM Sport bears the costs of the infringement action and TGI those of the counterclaim, each up to EUR 600,000.

Key points for practice

• A local division may align itself with the equivalence criteria used by other divisions where both parties rely on them and the Court of Appeal has not yet ruled (paragraphs 170 to 172).
• The equivalence criteria are cumulative, so failure on the first makes the others unnecessary (paragraph 174).
• The Court answers an argument only to the extent that it is substantiated: the added matter objection was examined for claim 5 alone (paragraphs 63 and 66).
• Practical point: the outcome of an interim appeal is weighed in the final costs decision, which makes it worth recording the costs of each procedural step separately (paragraphs 197 to 200).

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 25(b) and Art. 69(1)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 118.5, 263 and 360

European Patent Convention

Art. 54, Art. 56, Art. 69, Art. 123(2), Art. 138(1)(c), and Article 2 of the Protocol on the Interpretation of Article 69

Case law cited

Plant-e v Arkyne, The Hague Local Division, 22 November 2024 (UPC_CFI_239/2023), on the equivalence criteria, Juul v NJOY, Court of Appeal, 3 April 2024 (UPC_CoA_433/2023), and Fives v REEL, Hamburg Local Division, 11 February 2026 (UPC_CFI_274/2023), on the costs of interim appeals, NanoString v 10x Genomics, Court of Appeal, 26 February 2024 (UPC_CoA_335/2023), on claim construction, Amgen v Sanofi, Court of Appeal, 25 November 2025 (UPC_CoA_528/2024), and Abbott v Sibio, Court of Appeal, 14 February 2025 (UPC_CoA_382/2024), on validity.

Related decisions

• AIM Sport Vision AG v Supponor Oy, 20 October 2023, decision on the preliminary objection, set aside on appeal.
• AIM Sport Development AG v TGI Sport Suomi Oy, 29 April 2026, order of the same day disposing of the application for provisional measures and its costs.

Prepared by Dhenne Avocats from the official decision, consulted on 10 October 2026. The database is updated every week, on Friday. Only the official text is authoritative.