Technical Character of UI Features and Cross-Appeal Limits at the CoA
The Court of Appeal clarifies that non-technical UI features can contribute to inventive step if they interact to provide a technical effect, while also setting strict limits on the admissibility of cross-appeals.
A claim feature should not be excluded from the assessment of inventive step merely because it is a non-technical feature, provided it contributes to the technical character of the invention as a whole through its interaction with other features. In UPC_CoA_901/2025, the Court of Appeal overturned a first-instance denial of a preliminary injunction, clarifying both the technicality of user interface features and the strict limits on cross-appeals under the Rules of Procedure.
The timeline graph and event data icons
The dispute centred on EP 3 988 471, which protects a continuous glucose monitoring system. Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. sought a preliminary injunction against the GlucoMen iCan and its associated mobile application. The Local Division The Hague had denied the application, finding it more likely than not that the patent was not infringed. The lower court construed the claim to require that "event data icons" (indicating meals or exercise) must be displayed on or near the graph line of the timeline graph.
The Court of Appeal rejected this spatial limitation. The panel held that the event data icons can be placed anywhere on the graph, as long as the time at which the event occurred is identified on the graph (reasons 55). Because the GlucoMen iCan app's "Trend Graph" displayed event data icons below the x-axis but correlated to the same time axis as the monitored glucose levels, the Court found infringement likely (reasons 67–68).
Technical character of display features
Having established infringement, the panel addressed validity. The respondents argued that the display of event data icons lacked an inventive step because the features were non-technical and should be excluded from the assessment.
The Court of Appeal firmly rejected this dissection of the claim. Applying the principle that the interrelationship and functioning of the claim features must be assessed together, the panel found that the display measures constitute a technical contribution. Specifically, the Court held that these features result in the technical effect of improved assistance to the user's diabetes control by providing means to identify the effect of certain events on the monitored glucose levels (reasons 114). The fact that the user ultimately decides what action to take based on this information did not strip the features of their technical nature, as they generate the displays through user interaction and technical means.
The admissibility of cross-appeals
The decision also establishes a strict procedural boundary for successful defendants. At first instance, the respondents successfully defeated the preliminary injunction on non-infringement grounds, but the Local Division had rejected their argument that the application lacked urgency. The respondents filed a cross-appeal specifically targeting the urgency finding.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the cross-appeal as inadmissible. Under Rule 220 RoP and Rule 237 RoP, only a party adversely affected by a decision may appeal. The panel ruled that a cross-appeal is inadmissible if the only purpose of the cross-appeal is to change the reasoning of the Court in First Instance, which in its result is in favour of the party filing the cross-appeal (reasons 208).
Practical implications
This order provides crucial guidance on two distinct fronts. Substantively, it confirms that user interface features in medical devices can clear the technicality hurdle if they provide a specific operational link between user inputs and monitored physiological data. Practitioners defending software or UI patents should focus on articulating how the interface elements interact with the underlying system to produce a concrete effect, such as improved assistance to the user's diabetes control.
Procedurally, the dismissal of the cross-appeal serves as a strict warning regarding appellate strategy. If a party prevails on the operative outcome at first instance, they cannot use a cross-appeal merely to correct the lower court's reasoning on a subsidiary issue like urgency. Such arguments must be raised as a defence in the appeal itself, rather than through an inadmissible cross-appeal.
Sources
Further Reading
Articles related to the topics covered above.
Appeal Deadlines and Unreasoned Decisions at the Court of Appeal
The Court of Appeal clarifies that the two-month deadline for lodging a Statement of appeal does not begin until the Court of First Instance serves a decision containing written reasons.
Arbitrary Modifications and Late Submissions: T 0094/24 on the Problem-Solution Framework
Board 3.5.05 confirms that features failing to credibly achieve a technical effect over the whole claimed scope are arbitrary modifications, requiring no objective technical problem to be formulated.
Claim Construction and Multi-Material Purge Towers at The Hague Local Division
The Hague Local Division dismisses an application for provisional measures, strictly interpreting a 'layer by layer' claim feature based on the patent's description and drawings.