UPClytics
DeutschEnglish
AnmeldenRegistrieren
Alle Fälle anzeigen

ACT 583273/2023

—·EP2867997B1

Verfahrensdetails
Status
—
Verfahrensart
Verletzung
Kategorie
Hauptverletzungsklage
Parteien
Kläger
Vertreter: Philipp Cepl; Constanze Krenz; Benedikt Hammerschmid; Carl Prior
Division
Munich LD
Richter
Technology
Telecoms · Wireless Power
Sprache
—
Erste Entscheidung
13. Sept. 2024
Ansprüche
Streitigall
Aufrechterhaltenall
Verletztall
Hinweise: Infringement found for EP 2 867 997 B1 across all asserted claims; counterclaims for revocation dismissed and patent maintained as granted.
Entscheidungen
  • 2024-09-13
    VerletztUnterlassung angeordnetVerletzung (Hauptsache)Infringement Action

    Munich Local Division found Belkin GmbH, Belkin International Inc., and Belkin Limited liable for infringement of Philips' EP 2 867 997 B1 (wireless power transfer technology) and dismissed the counterclaims for revocation. An injunction was granted against Belkin's infringing acts outside Germany (German acts excluded due to opt-out/national proceedings). Defendants were ordered to provide information, recall products, pay EUR 119,000 interim damages, and cover approximately 5/6 of costs. The revocation counterclaims were dismissed. (German territorial acts were carved out from the injunction as a separate matter.)

    Rechtsfragen:Patent infringement of wireless power transfer technologyRevocation counterclaim dismissedScope of injunction and territorial carve-out for GermanyLiability of company directors as intermediaries under Art. 63(1) UPCAPatent infringer as manufacturer/seller under UPCA
    Schadenersatz: 119,000
Dokumente
  • EEE4E190FDD54363A7EE8732A1106AE3_de.pdf2024-09-13DE
Zusammenfassung in einfacher Sprache

Koninklijke Philips N.V. obtained a merits judgment against Belkin GmbH, Belkin International Inc., and Belkin Limited at the Munich Local Division for infringement of EP 2 867 997 B1 (wireless power transfer technology). The court upheld the patent against revocation counterclaims and granted an injunction, recall, information order, and EUR 119,000 interim damages for acts outside Germany (German acts excluded due to opt-out). Orders were also issued against Belkin's corporate officers as intermediaries under Art. 63(1)(2) UPCA. Late-filed prior art document D7 was excluded from the proceedings.

Angenommene Argumente
Was das Gericht akzeptiert hat — nach Partei.

  • Protection sought from description and drawings can only be claim subject-matter if expressed in the claim

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 69 EPC

    Hinweis: Munich LD confirmed that scope of protection is determined by claim language; broader description content does not expand the claim.

  • Where description presents multiple embodiments as belonging to the invention, claim terms must be understood broadly enough to encompass all embodiments

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 69 EPC

    Hinweis: Court held that if multiple embodiments are presented as inventive, terms in the claim must be interpreted to cover all of them.

  • Infringer is the party who acts as manufacturer/offeror or who creates the impression for the relevant market that it manufactures/distributes goods in its own name and for its own account

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 25 UPCA

    Hinweis: Court applied this test to identify liable Belkin entities as direct infringers.

  • Order against corporate officers (as intermediaries) available where company infringes

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 63(1)(2) UPCA

    Hinweis: Court issued orders against Belkin GmbH's CEO and Belkin Limited's directors in their capacity as intermediaries.

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

  • D7 (new prior art) submitted with written submission of 15 March 2024 admitted to revocation proceedings

    Beklagter

    Begründung: D7 and related submissions were not admitted into the proceedings.

  • Revocation counterclaims — patent invalid

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 138 EPC

    Begründung: Revocation counterclaims dismissed in their entirety.

Zentrale Rechtsgrundsätze
In der Begründung herangezogene Doktrinen und Regeln.
Claim scope determined by claim language — description broadens interpretation only where claim text reflects itWhere multiple embodiments presented as inventive, claim terms interpreted to cover all of themInfringer identification: party acting as manufacturer/offeror or creating that market impressionOrders against corporate officers as intermediaries available under Art. 63(1)(2) UPCAGerman territorial acts excluded from UPC injunction where opt-out/national proceedings apply

Weitere Fälle zu diesem Grundsatz ansehen.

Herangezogener Stand der Technik
Zitierte Schriften und die Rolle, die sie gespielt haben.
  • D7 (unspecified late-filed document)Erfindungsmüh-Kombination
Hinweise zur Anspruchsauslegung

The Munich LD applied Art. 69 EPC claim construction: protection extends only to what is expressed in the claim; description and drawings inform but do not expand claim scope. Where the description presents multiple embodiments as inventive, claim terms are interpreted in the widest sense consistent with covering all such embodiments. The infringement finding covered Belkin's wireless power transfer products outside Germany (German acts carved out). Belkin's corporate officers were ordered as intermediaries.