ACT_2097/2024
Centrifugal pump assembly
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.