ACT 2097/2024
—·EP2778423: Centrifugal pump assembly
- Verfahrensdetails
- Status—VerfahrensartVerletzungKategorieHauptverletzungsklage
- Parteien
- KlägerVertreter: Markus B. Bölling (Mitscherlich Patent- und Rechtsanwälte); Christian Rupp (Mitscherlich Patent- und Rechtsanwälte); Alexander Bach (Mitscherlich Patent- und Rechtsanwälte)BeklagteVertreter: Michael (surname Not Fully Stated In Excerpt)
- Division
- Dusseldorf LD
- Richter
- Ronny Thomas · Presiding judge
- Ulrike Voß · Presiding judge (co-panel)
- Andras Kupecz · Legally qualified judge
- Merja Heikkinen-Keinänen · Technically qualified judge
- Technology
- Industrial Manufacturing · Pumps & Fluid Handling
- Sprache
- —
- Erste Entscheidung
- 8. Mai 2025
- 2025-05-08VerletztUnterlassung angeordnetVerletzung (Hauptsache)Infringement Action
Düsseldorf Local Division final decision in infringement action (with revocation counterclaim) concerning a pump patent (EP 2 778 423 B1), by Grundfos against a Chinese manufacturer (Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump). The court found infringement, granted an injunction, ordered accounting/information, recall from distribution channels, and declared liability for damages from 28 February 2018. The revocation counterclaim was dismissed. Defendant bears all costs. The court addressed the admissibility of new prior art raised for the first time in the defendant's rejoinder to the revocation counterclaim, holding that such new attacks require a convincing explanation of why they could not have been included earlier.
Rechtsfragen:Patent infringementRevocation counterclaim dismissedNew prior art in rejoinder (R. 263 RoP)Admissibility of late prior art attacksPump technologySchadenersatz: Haftung festgestellt, Höhe vorbehalten
- D5CE84D2F9750FE5A2A246B9C8B5E7AB_de.pdf2025-05-08GERMAN
Grundfos Holding A/S brought an infringement action against Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co. Ltd. at the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning EP 2 778 423 B1, a centrifugal pump patent. The court found infringement and dismissed the revocation counterclaim, granting an injunction, accounting, recall, and damages from 28 February 2018. A notable procedural ruling held that new prior art or new invalidity attacks first raised in the rejoinder to the revocation counterclaim constitute an expansion of the counterclaim under R. 263 RoP and are admitted only if the defendant shows due diligence and absence of undue prejudice to the claimant.
New prior art introduced in defendant's rejoinder to revocation counterclaim constitutes an expansion requiring convincing justification for late filing
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Rule 263 RoPHinweis: Düsseldorf LD held that new prior art in the rejoinder to the revocation counterclaim is an expansion of the counterclaim; admission requires the defendant to convince the court the documents could not have been filed with the original counterclaim and that admission would not unduly prejudice the claimant.
Same rule applies when already-filed prior art is first used for a new invalidity attack only in the rejoinder
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Rule 263 RoPHinweis: Court extended the same diligence-and-prejudice test to situations where a prior-art document already in the file is first deployed for a new novelty/inventive-step attack in the rejoinder.
New prior art and new invalidity attacks raised for the first time in the rejoinder to revocation counterclaim
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Rule 263 RoPBegründung: Defendant failed to convince the court that due diligence precluded earlier filing of these prior-art attacks; the new material was not admitted.
Weitere Fälle zu diesem Grundsatz ansehen.