ACT_590302/2023
BOOST POWER FACTOR CORRECTION CIRCUIT (BOOST PFC)
Tridonic GmbH & Co KG sued CUPOWER entities in the Düsseldorf Local Division for infringement of EP 2 011 218 B1, a Boost Power Factor Correction Circuit patent for LED drivers. The court dismissed the infringement action after finding that the accused products' capacitor C3 did not achieve the 'complete electrical separation' required by feature 7.4 (decoupling element), while simultaneously dismissing the defendants' revocation counterclaim. Costs of the infringement action were awarded to defendants; costs of the revocation counterclaim were awarded to claimant.
Accused products do not fulfil feature 7.4 (decoupling element) of EP 2 011 218
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 69 EPC (claim construction); Art. 25 UPCAHinweis: The Düsseldorf Local Division held that the capacitor C3 in defendants' LED power supply design does not achieve the complete electrical separation required by the patent's 'decoupling element'; it remains continuously connected to the control unit regardless of switch state, so only one signal at one pin of the control unit is not achieved as required.
New invalidity attacks raised for the first time at oral hearing are inadmissible due to front-loaded UPC procedure
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Preamble 7 RoP; R. 55 RoPHinweis: The court refused to consider new invalidity attacks raised strategically at oral hearing for surprise effect, finding this incompatible with the UPC's procedure against strategic surprise tactics.
Defendants' LED power supply products infringe EP 2 011 218 B1
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 69 EPC; Art. 25 UPCABegründung: The court found that the accused products do not realise feature 7.4 of the patent — the decoupling element — because capacitor C3 does not achieve complete electrical separation between the switch signal and the control unit; both measurement circuits remain continuously connected to the control unit pin, so the patent's requirement of only one current signal arriving at one pin is not met.
Patent EP 2 011 218 is invalid (counterclaim for revocation)
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 65 UPCABegründung: The revocation counterclaim was dismissed; the patent was maintained as valid.
The court construed 'decoupling element' in feature 7.4 of EP 2 011 218 as requiring complete electrical separation, such that only one current signal at a time arrives at one pin of the control unit. The accused design's capacitor C3 does not achieve this because it responds to any voltage change across the switch — whether open or closed — and thereby applies a voltage level through the signal path in both states, meaning both measurement circuits remain continuously connected to the control unit pin simultaneously.