UPClytics
DeutschEnglish
AnmeldenRegistrieren
Alle Fälle anzeigen

ACT 576606/2023

—·EP2548648: Mill for comminuting of material

Verfahrensdetails
Status
—
Verfahrensart
Verletzung
Kategorie
Hauptverletzungsklage
Parteien
Kläger
Vertreter: Blumenröder
Beklagte
Vertreter: Rüberg
Division
Mannheim LD
Richter
Technology
Industrial Manufacturing · Shredding Machinery
Sprache
—
Erste Entscheidung
31. Jan. 2025
Ansprüche
Streitigall
Nichtig erklärtall
Hinweise: Mannheim LD revoked EP2548648 in its entirety (vollumfänglich) for lack of inventive step across 13 UPC member states; infringement action dismissed as a consequence.
Entscheidungen
  • 2025-01-31
    Nichtig erklärtVerletzung (Hauptsache)Infringement Action

    The Mannheim Local Division revoked EP 2 548 648 (a wood/biomass shredder patent) in its entirety for lack of inventive step across 13 UPC member states, and dismissed the infringement action as a consequence; the claimant Rematec was ordered to bear 75% of costs.

    Rechtsfragen:Patent revocation for lack of inventive stepInfringement dismissed following revocationPrior art analysis (shredder element orientation)
Dokumente
  • 2E937EEA0EF480BF07F87D4A88515148_de.pdf2025-01-31DE
Abdeckung: Teilweise.Begründung teilweise extrahiert — einige Abschnitte können unvollständig sein.
Zusammenfassung in einfacher Sprache

Rematec brought an infringement action against Europe Forestry B.V. regarding its wood/biomass shredder patent EP 2 548 648. The Mannheim Local Division found the patent invalid for lack of inventive step over D3 (which prompted the skilled person to address cutting element orientation) combined with D9 (which showed 45-degree oblique ribs in fibrous wood grinding), and revoked it across 13 UPC member states. The infringement action was dismissed as a consequence and Rematec was ordered to bear 75% of costs.

Angenommene Argumente
Was das Gericht akzeptiert hat — nach Partei.

  • EP 2 548 648 lacks inventive step over D3 combined with D9 for the shredder tooth/cutting element orientation feature (Merkmal 1m)

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 56 EPC

    Hinweis: The Mannheim Local Division found that D3 taught the skilled person that the choice and arrangement of tearing/cutting elements must be coordinated, prompting the skilled person to consult D9, which showed oblique ribs at approximately 45 degrees to the circumferential direction of the rotor in fibrous wood material grinding, corresponding to feature 1m.

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

  • Patent EP 2 548 648 is valid and infringement claims should be upheld

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 56 EPC

    Begründung: The patent was found invalid for lack of inventive step and revoked in its entirety; infringement action was dismissed as a consequence.

Zentrale Rechtsgrundsätze
In der Begründung herangezogene Doktrinen und Regeln.
problem-solution approach for inventive stepmotivation to combine prior art referencesrevocation of patent defeats pending infringement action

Weitere Fälle zu diesem Grundsatz ansehen.

Herangezogener Stand der Technik
Zitierte Schriften und die Rolle, die sie gespielt haben.
  • D3 (unspecified publication, shredder/mill technology)Erfindungsmüh-Kombination
  • D9 (unspecified publication, fibrous wood material grinding with oblique ribs/strips)Erfindungsmüh-Kombination
Hinweise zur Anspruchsauslegung

The court analysed feature 1m of EP 2 548 648 (mill for comminuting material, particularly biomass/wood), which concerns the angular arrangement of tearing and/or cutting elements at the inner wall of the grinding chamber relative to the circumferential direction of the rotor. The court found that D9 discloses oblique strips/ribs at approximately 45 degrees in a fibrous wood material grinder, corresponding to feature 1m.