{"id":48602,"date":"2026-07-09T11:58:40","date_gmt":"2026-07-09T09:58:40","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/?p=48602"},"modified":"2026-07-13T09:20:44","modified_gmt":"2026-07-13T07:20:44","slug":"assessing-equivalence","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/en\/assessing-equivalence\/","title":{"rendered":"Local Division Dusseldorf endorses the Plant-e v. Arkyne test for assessing equivalence"},"content":{"rendered":"

The validation of the Plant-e-Test by a German Local Division paves the way for the standardization of equivalence rulings at the UPC.<\/strong><\/h2>\n

In Wonderland v. Cybex<\/em>, concerning the infringement of patents relating to child seats and strollers (UPC_CFI_807\/2024 and UPC_CFI_334\/2025, decision of 27 May 2026), the Local Division (LD) D\u00fcsseldorf confirmed that the test for assessing equivalent infringement developed by the LD The Hague (UPC_CFI_239\/2023, decision of 22 November 2024, para. 88 \u2013 Plant-e v. Arkyne<\/em>) forms a coherent whole and is as such suitable for the examination of equivalence (Headnote 1).<\/p>\n

This makes Wonderland v. Cybex<\/em> one of the first UPC decisions to examine equivalence on the merits \u2013 and the first in which a German Local Division applies the largely Dutch-inspired Plant-e<\/em> framework rather than the competing German Schneidmesser<\/em> approach. The position of the Plant-e<\/em> test as the emerging UPC standard has thereby been strengthened considerably, although the Court of Appeal (CoA) has yet to rule on the issue.<\/p>\n

Competing approaches to equivalence<\/h3>\n

The Plant-e<\/em> test consists of four questions: (1)<\/strong> Technical equivalence \u2013 does the variation solve (essentially) the same problem as the patented invention and perform (essentially) the same function? (2)<\/strong> Fair protection \u2013 is extending protection to the equivalent proportionate to a fair protection for the patentee, in view of his contribution to the art and of whether it is obvious to the skilled person from the patent how to apply the equivalent element (at the time of infringement)? (3)<\/strong> Reasonable legal certainty for third parties \u2013 does the skilled person understand from the patent that the scope of the invention is broader than what is claimed literally? (4)<\/strong> Is the allegedly infringing product novel and inventive over the prior art?<\/p>\n

The German Schneidmesser<\/em> test (BGH, decision of 12 March 2002, X ZR 168\/00 \u2013 Schneidmesser I<\/em>) asks: (1)<\/strong> Equal effect \u2013 do the modified means objectively perform essentially the same function as the claimed feature? (2)<\/strong> Findability \u2013 was the skilled person able, at the priority date and without inventive considerations, to identify the modified means as performing that function? (3)<\/strong> Orientation along the patent claim \u2013 are the skilled person’s considerations oriented along the claim such that the modified means are regarded as an equivalent solution within the meaning of the patent? A fourth question, sometimes treated as part of the canon, asks whether the description discloses the modified means but ultimately excludes them, whether by omission from the claim or by outright rejection.<\/p>\n

Where the two tests actually diverge<\/h3>\n

The decision contrasts the \u201cholistic\u201d Dutch approach with the \u201clegal-technical\u201d German approach. In practical terms, this shorthand translates into three concrete differences:<\/p>\n

First, the reference date.<\/h4>\n

Under Schneidmesser<\/em>, the modified means must have been findable at the priority date<\/em>; under Plant-e<\/em>, it suffices that applying the equivalent element was obvious at the time of infringement<\/em>. Post-priority technical knowledge can therefore support equivalence under the Dutch test but not under the German one \u2013 structurally, Plant-e<\/em> is the broader standard, and this difference alone can be outcome-determinative, particularly for older patents in fast-moving fields.<\/p>\n

Second, the yardstick: claim primacy versus fairness balancing.<\/h4>\n

The decisive third Schneidmesser<\/em> question ties equivalence strictly to the patent claim: even a technically equivalent, readily findable variant falls outside the scope of protection where the claim wording reflects a deliberate narrowing choice by the patentee. Plant-e<\/em> has no such claim-orientation filter; it instead balances fair protection for the patentee against legal certainty for third parties. Put pointedly: in borderline cases the German test asks what the claim permits, the Dutch test asks what result is fair.<\/p>\n

Third, the role of the prior art.<\/h4>\n

Plant-e<\/em> integrates the novelty and inventiveness of the attacked embodiment over the prior art directly into the test (question 4). In German practice, this corresponds to the separate Formstein<\/em> defence, which must be raised by the defendant and is not part of the equivalence test itself \u2013 with corresponding consequences for the structure and burden of the parties’ pleadings.<\/p>\n

The German clarification<\/h3>\n

On technical equivalence, the LD D\u00fcsseldorf clarified that the claimant must not focus solely on the objective problem of the patent in suit, but must demonstrate the function of each substituted feature in achieving that objective and explain why the variation performs essentially the same function (Headnote 2). This mirrors the first Schneidmesser<\/em> question and reads a distinctly German, feature-by-feature technical discipline into the first question of the Dutch test. On the second Plant-e<\/em> question, the panel held \u2013 rather self-evidently \u2013 that applying the equivalent element is not obvious where it would require a complete redesign of the claimed device (Headnote 3, para. 263). Beyond this, the court did not deviate from the approach of the LD The Hague.<\/p>\n

Endorsement \u2013 with a caveat<\/h3>\n

The endorsement by a German Local Division carries weight. One passage, however, counsels against reading the decision as a landmark ruling: the panel expressly noted that there is no indication that applying a different standard than the Plant-e<\/em> test would have produced a different result in the case at hand (para. 240). The adoption of the Dutch framework was thus outcome-neutral; the panel did not decide that Plant-e<\/em> must prevail where the two tests genuinely diverge \u2013 for instance on the reference date. That question remains open, ultimately for the CoA. The decision is therefore best read not as a defeat of the German approach, but as a step towards convergence: a German Local Division applying the Dutch framework while injecting German technical rigour into its first question. The direction of travel towards a uniform UPC test for equivalence has become clearer; its final destination has not yet been fixed.<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The validation of the Plant-e-Test by a German Local Division paves the way for the standardization of equivalence rulings at the UPC. In Wonderland v. Cybex, concerning the infringement of patents relating to child seats and strollers (UPC_CFI_807\/2024 and UPC_CFI_334\/2025,…<\/p>","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":48611,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":"","_links_to":"","_links_to_target":""},"categories":[64],"tags":[],"legal_areas":[],"class_list":["post-48602","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-upc-update-en"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\nThe Plant-e v. Arkyne Test for Assessing Equivalence<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"The Dusseldorf Local Chamber has upheld the Plant-e v. Arkyne test for assessing equivalence. Learn more here!\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/en\/assessing-equivalence\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Plant-e v. Arkyne Test for Assessing Equivalence\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"The Dusseldorf Local Chamber has upheld the Plant-e v. Arkyne test for assessing equivalence. Learn more here!\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/en\/assessing-equivalence\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"BOEHMERT & BOEHMERT\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-07-09T09:58:40+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-07-13T07:20:44+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/UPC-Update-boehmert.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"650\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"598\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Petra Hettenkofer\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Petra Hettenkofer\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.boehmert.de\\\/en\\\/assessing-equivalence\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.boehmert.de\\\/en\\\/assessing-equivalence\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Petra Hettenkofer\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.boehmert.de\\\/en\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/e46018db6ce9c808bc0f35de4a8cec19\"},\"headline\":\"Local Division Dusseldorf endorses the Plant-e v. Arkyne test for assessing equivalence\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-07-09T09:58:40+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-07-13T07:20:44+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.boehmert.de\\\/en\\\/assessing-equivalence\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":922,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.boehmert.de\\\/en\\\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.boehmert.de\\\/en\\\/assessing-equivalence\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.boehmert.de\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/UPC-Update-boehmert.jpg\",\"articleSection\":[\"UPC-Update\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.boehmert.de\\\/en\\\/assessing-equivalence\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.boehmert.de\\\/en\\\/assessing-equivalence\\\/\",\"name\":\"The Plant-e v. Arkyne Test for Assessing Equivalence\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.boehmert.de\\\/en\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.boehmert.de\\\/en\\\/assessing-equivalence\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.boehmert.de\\\/en\\\/assessing-equivalence\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.boehmert.de\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/UPC-Update-boehmert.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-07-09T09:58:40+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-07-13T07:20:44+00:00\",\"description\":\"The Dusseldorf Local Chamber has upheld the Plant-e v. Arkyne test for assessing equivalence. Learn more here!\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.boehmert.de\\\/en\\\/assessing-equivalence\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.boehmert.de\\\/en\\\/assessing-equivalence\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.boehmert.de\\\/en\\\/assessing-equivalence\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.boehmert.de\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/UPC-Update-boehmert.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.boehmert.de\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/UPC-Update-boehmert.jpg\",\"width\":650,\"height\":598,\"caption\":\"Overview of current developments and key decisions of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) in European patent litigation.\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.boehmert.de\\\/en\\\/assessing-equivalence\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.boehmert.de\\\/en\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Local Division Dusseldorf endorses the Plant-e v. Arkyne test for assessing equivalence\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.boehmert.de\\\/en\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.boehmert.de\\\/en\\\/\",\"name\":\"BOEHMERT & BOEHMERT\",\"description\":\"Intellectual property law firm\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.boehmert.de\\\/en\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.boehmert.de\\\/en\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.boehmert.de\\\/en\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"BOEHMERT & BOEHMERT Anwaltspartnerschaft mbB\",\"alternateName\":\"BOEHMERT & BOEHMERT\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.boehmert.de\\\/en\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.boehmert.de\\\/en\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.boehmert.de\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/Logo-boehmert.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.boehmert.de\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/Logo-boehmert.webp\",\"width\":696,\"height\":172,\"caption\":\"BOEHMERT & BOEHMERT Anwaltspartnerschaft mbB\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.boehmert.de\\\/en\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/de.linkedin.com\\\/company\\\/boehmert-&-boehmert\",\"https:\\\/\\\/www.xing.com\\\/pages\\\/boehmert-boehmertanwaltssozietat\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.boehmert.de\\\/en\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/e46018db6ce9c808bc0f35de4a8cec19\",\"name\":\"Petra Hettenkofer\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"The Plant-e v. Arkyne Test for Assessing Equivalence","description":"The Dusseldorf Local Chamber has upheld the Plant-e v. Arkyne test for assessing equivalence. Learn more here!","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/en\/assessing-equivalence\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Plant-e v. Arkyne Test for Assessing Equivalence","og_description":"The Dusseldorf Local Chamber has upheld the Plant-e v. Arkyne test for assessing equivalence. Learn more here!","og_url":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/en\/assessing-equivalence\/","og_site_name":"BOEHMERT & BOEHMERT","article_published_time":"2026-07-09T09:58:40+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-07-13T07:20:44+00:00","og_image":[{"width":650,"height":598,"url":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/UPC-Update-boehmert.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Petra Hettenkofer","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Petra Hettenkofer","Est. reading time":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/en\/assessing-equivalence\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/en\/assessing-equivalence\/"},"author":{"name":"Petra Hettenkofer","@id":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/en\/#\/schema\/person\/e46018db6ce9c808bc0f35de4a8cec19"},"headline":"Local Division Dusseldorf endorses the Plant-e v. Arkyne test for assessing equivalence","datePublished":"2026-07-09T09:58:40+00:00","dateModified":"2026-07-13T07:20:44+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/en\/assessing-equivalence\/"},"wordCount":922,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/en\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/en\/assessing-equivalence\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/UPC-Update-boehmert.jpg","articleSection":["UPC-Update"],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/en\/assessing-equivalence\/","url":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/en\/assessing-equivalence\/","name":"The Plant-e v. Arkyne Test for Assessing Equivalence","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/en\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/en\/assessing-equivalence\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/en\/assessing-equivalence\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/UPC-Update-boehmert.jpg","datePublished":"2026-07-09T09:58:40+00:00","dateModified":"2026-07-13T07:20:44+00:00","description":"The Dusseldorf Local Chamber has upheld the Plant-e v. Arkyne test for assessing equivalence. Learn more here!","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/en\/assessing-equivalence\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/en\/assessing-equivalence\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/en\/assessing-equivalence\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/UPC-Update-boehmert.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/UPC-Update-boehmert.jpg","width":650,"height":598,"caption":"Overview of current developments and key decisions of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) in European patent litigation."},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/en\/assessing-equivalence\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/en\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Local Division Dusseldorf endorses the Plant-e v. Arkyne test for assessing equivalence"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/en\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/en\/","name":"BOEHMERT & BOEHMERT","description":"Intellectual property law firm","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/en\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/en\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/en\/#organization","name":"BOEHMERT & BOEHMERT Anwaltspartnerschaft mbB","alternateName":"BOEHMERT & BOEHMERT","url":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/en\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/en\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/Logo-boehmert.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/Logo-boehmert.webp","width":696,"height":172,"caption":"BOEHMERT & BOEHMERT Anwaltspartnerschaft mbB"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/en\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/de.linkedin.com\/company\/boehmert-&-boehmert","https:\/\/www.xing.com\/pages\/boehmert-boehmertanwaltssozietat"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/en\/#\/schema\/person\/e46018db6ce9c808bc0f35de4a8cec19","name":"Petra Hettenkofer"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/48602","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=48602"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/48602\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/48611"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=48602"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=48602"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=48602"},{"taxonomy":"legal_areas","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/legal_areas?post=48602"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}