UPClytics
DeutschEnglish
AnmeldenRegistrieren
Alle Fälle anzeigen

ACT 2379/2024

—·EP3466498: SEARCH DEVICE FOR AVALANCHE VICTIMS AND METHOD FOR OPERATING A SEARCH DEVICE FOR AVALANCHE VICTIMS

Verfahrensdetails
Status
—
Verfahrensart
Verletzung
Kategorie
Hauptverletzungsklage
Parteien
Kläger
Vertreter: Miriam Kiefer (Kather Augenstein); Robert Knaps (Kather Augenstein); Michael Siebel (Hofstetter, Schurack & Partner)
Beklagte
Vertreter: Oliver Jan Jüngst (Bird & Bird LLP); Moritz Schroeder (Bird & Bird LLP); Alexander Bothe (Bird & Bird LLP); Fabian Leimgruber (Thomann Fischer)
Division
Dusseldorf LD
Richter
Technology
Measurement & Instrumentation · Search & Rescue Sensors · Computing & AI
Sprache
—
Erste Entscheidung
14. Jan. 2025
Ansprüche
Streitigall
Verletztall
Hinweise: Düsseldorf Local Division found direct and indirect infringement of EP 3 466 498 B1 by Mammut; revocation counterclaim dismissed; no specific claim numbers enumerated in excerpt.
Entscheidungen
  • 2025-01-14
    VerletztUnterlassung angeordnetVerletzung (Hauptsache)Infringement Action

    Final decision in infringement action (with counterclaim for revocation) concerning an avalanche transceiver patent. The Düsseldorf Local Division found direct and indirect infringement by the Mammut defendants, granted an injunction, ordered recall and removal from distribution channels, ordered provision of accounts, and declared liability for damages (with EUR 3,000 preliminary damages awarded). The counterclaim for revocation was dismissed. Costs were split: claimant to bear 80%, each defendant 10% of infringement action costs; defendants to bear costs of revocation counterclaim.

    Rechtsfragen:Direct patent infringementIndirect patent infringementNoveltyInventive stepDestruction of infringing goodsRecall from distribution channelsPublication of decision (Art. 80 UPCA)Activation of patented features by end users
    Schadenersatz: 3,000
Dokumente
  • D08D87F8E22177A08F5825B45F9A9769_de.pdf2025-01-14GERMAN
Abdeckung: Teilweise.Begründung teilweise extrahiert — einige Abschnitte können unvollständig sein.
Zusammenfassung in einfacher Sprache

Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH sued Mammut Sports Group AG and GmbH before the Düsseldorf Local Division for infringement of EP 3 466 498 B1, a patent for an avalanche search transceiver. The court found both direct and indirect infringement (including through customer-activated functions), granted a permanent injunction, ordered recall and removal from distribution channels, and declared Mammut's liability for damages (with EUR 3,000 preliminary award). The revocation counterclaim was dismissed and costs were split with claimant bearing 80% of infringement action costs and defendants bearing costs of the revocation counterclaim.

Angenommene Argumente
Was das Gericht akzeptiert hat — nach Partei.

  • Direct and indirect infringement established: defendant must bear responsibility for customer activation of infringing functions where it instructs customers to activate and knowingly exploits such activation

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 25, 26 UPCA

    Hinweis: The Düsseldorf Local Division held that where a device in its offered state requires customer activation of certain functions to realise all patent claim features, the infringer is liable where it instructs or knowingly exploits such activation; both direct and indirect infringement were established.

  • Destruction ordered rather than software deactivation; deactivation only acceptable if re-enabling to infringing state is impossible

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 64 UPCA

    Hinweis: The court ordered destruction unless software deactivation would reliably and permanently prevent the device from being re-enabled in an infringing state.

  • Publication of decision not warranted where claimant's protection already addressed by other measures

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 80 UPCA

    Hinweis: The court exercised its discretion under Art. 80 UPCA and declined to order publication, finding that the claimant's interests were already adequately addressed by the injunction and other corrective measures.

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

  • Patent EP 3 466 498 is invalid (counterclaim for revocation) — novelty and inventive step

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 65 UPCA; Art. 54, 56 EPC

    Begründung: The revocation counterclaim was dismissed; the court found the patent valid, upholding novelty and inventive step.

Zentrale Rechtsgrundsätze
In der Begründung herangezogene Doktrinen und Regeln.
direct and indirect infringement where customer activation of infringing features is instructed or knowingly exploiteddestruction as corrective measure; software deactivation insufficient unless re-enabling impossiblediscretion to order publication of decision under Art. 80 UPCA; normally only where other measures insufficientcosts apportionment in proceedings with partial success on both sides

Weitere Fälle zu diesem Grundsatz ansehen.

Hinweise zur Anspruchsauslegung

The key claim construction issue concerned whether the accused avalanche transceiver in its offered state realised all features of the patent claim. The court held that where customer activation of certain functions is needed, liability attaches when the defendant instructs or knowingly exploits such activation, bridging the gap between the device as offered and the claimed device as fully realised.