The Unified Patent Court (UPC) Court of Appeal has confirmed and applied its earlier guidance that claim features must be interpreted in the light of the claim as a whole. In UPC_CoA_622/2025, Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump v Grundfos Holding, the Court also clarified that identical terms within a claim do not necessarily have to carry exactly the same meaning where the description and the function of the respective features support a different interpretation.
Background
EP 2 778 423 concerns a heating centrifugal pump assembly capable of operating using internal electronic regulation and external speed control. Claim 1 included means for switching from the internal electronic regulation to an external speed control or for temporarily switching to such external control.
The interpretation of the German terms “Umschalten” (i.e., switching) and “Zuschalten” (i.e., temporarily switching) was disputed. The Düsseldorf Local Division had understood “Umschalten” as a complete change from internal to external control, whereas “Zuschalten” meant that external control operated alongside the internal regulation.
The patent specification as its own lexicon
The Court of Appeal disagreed with that interpretation. Based on the description, it construed “Umschalten” as switching to external control on a continuing basis and “Zuschalten” as switching to external control temporarily or as required. In both situations, the external control could exclusively perform the regulation for the relevant period.
The Court emphasised that general linguistic usage was not decisive where the description supported a different technical understanding. In this respect, a patent specification can constitute its own lexicon (paras 31–38).
The Court also held that only the German wording of the claims was relevant in this case. As German was the authoritative language, an English translation which could have supported the Local Division’s interpretation did not affect the construction of the claim (para. 40).
Identical terms may have different meanings within the same claim
Of broader relevance is the Court’s reasoning in para. 58. Referring to its earlier decision in VusionGroup/Hanshow (UPC_CoA_1/2024), the Court reiterated that individual claim features must be interpreted in the light of the claim as a whole.
As a general rule, identical terms within a patent claim should be assumed to have the same meaning. However, the Court expressly recognised that this is not an absolute rule. The same term may be understood differently in different claim features where this follows from the claim when interpreted using the description. In particular, the different functions performed by the respective features may justify such a distinction.
The Court applied this principle to the term “Umschalten” which was used multiple times in claim 1. In one of the claim features, the term “Umschalten” was used in contrast to “Zuschalten” and therefore specifically referred to switching to external control on a continuing basis. In another feature, however, the term “Umschalten” was used in the context of describing the technical means necessary to enable switching generally and covered both switching on a continuing basis (Umschalten) and temporary switching (Zuschalten).
The decision illustrates that UPC claim construction is contextual rather than purely linguistic. Although consistent terminology within a claim remains the starting assumption, the technical function of individual features and the description may justify a more differentiated interpretation.
New submissions in appeal
The Court also addressed the issue of new submissions made during Appeal proceedings in the context of Rule 222.2 RoP. It was clarified that a submission should not be considered new if it serves to further specify and clarify an already conclusive submission from the first instance by adding further factual allegations.
