UPC Analytics
DEEN
Übersicht · Eingereicht: —

ACT_14764/2025

ELECTROLYTIC MEDIUM, ELECTROPOLISHING PROCESS USING SUCH ELECTROLYTIC MEDIUM AND DEVICE TO CARRY IT OUT

Einstweilige MaßnahmenEinstweilige MaßnahmenHamburg LDApplication for provisional measures—
ÜbersichtEntscheidungenBegründungZitateDokumenteZeitverlauf
Zusammenfassung in einfacher Sprache

Steros GPA Innovative S.L. obtained a preliminary injunction against OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH before the Hamburg Local Division for infringement of EP 4 249 647, covering an electrolytic medium for electropolishing. The court applied a balance-of-probabilities validity standard, rejected the defendant's unsubstantiated prior-use defence, and found the balance of interests favoured Steros because OTEC's product enabled new machine sales at Steros's expense. A subsequent rectification order corrected clerical errors in the PI order but declined to alter the court's legal assessment of the skilled person.

Angenommene Argumente
Was das Gericht akzeptiert hat — nach Partei.

  • Patent validity established on balance of probabilities (more likely than not valid)

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 62(2) UPCA; Rule 211.2 RoP

    Hinweis: Hamburg LD held that in PI proceedings the validity threshold is met if the court considers it more likely than not that the patent is valid; burden of proof for invalidity lies with the defendant.

  • Public prior use requires all claim features to have been used previously

    Kläger

    Hinweis: Court confirmed that a prior-use attack must cover each and every claim feature; defendant's prior-use argument failed to satisfy this standard.

  • Weighing of interests favoured applicant because defendant's product enabled new machine sales creating market opportunities lost to the applicant

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 62(2) UPCA

    Hinweis: The contested embodiment, combined with sale of a new machine, opened a new market; patent infringement led to subsequent business transactions for defendant representing missed opportunities for claimant.

Zurückgewiesene Argumente
Was das Gericht nicht akzeptiert hat — und warum.

  • Request for security for enforcement

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: R. 211.5 RoP; R. 213.2 RoP

    Begründung: Defendant provided no reasoned application — merely reproduced the wording of R. 211.5 RoP without presenting facts such as applicant's financial situation or difficulties in enforcement.

  • Attacked embodiment contains only one fluid (a water-in-oil emulsion) preventing infringement

    Beklagter

    Begründung: Court found infringement established; the emulsion characterisation did not rebut the claim elements regarding non-conductive fluid and solid electrolyte particles.

Zentrale Rechtsgrundsätze
In der Begründung herangezogene Doktrinen und Regeln.
Balance of probabilities validity standard for provisional measuresBurden of proof for invalidity lies with the defendant in PI proceedingsPublic prior use must cover all claim featuresWeighing of interests in PI can favour patentee where infringement opens new downstream marketsSecurity for enforcement requires a reasoned application with supporting facts

Weitere Fälle zu diesem Grundsatz ansehen.

Hinweise zur Anspruchsauslegung

The claim requires: solid electrolyte particles retaining a conductive solution with conductivity >10 microS/cm; a non-conductive fluid immiscible in the conductive solution (not forming a single phase 0–100°C, not significantly conducting current at rest). The court interpreted 'non-conductive fluid' by reference to paragraph [0067] of the description, treating it as the 'defining element of the invention'. The defendant's argument that the product was merely a water-in-oil emulsion (single fluid) was rejected.