UPC Analytics
DEEN
Übersicht · Eingereicht: —

ACT_6665/2024

FOAM RESIN STRUCTURAL PART FOR A FRAME OF A VEHICLE AND PRODUCTION METHOD THEREFOR

VerletzungHauptverletzungsklageDusseldorf LDInfringement Action—
ÜbersichtEntscheidungenBegründungZitateDokumenteZeitverlauf
Abdeckung: Teilweise.Begründung teilweise extrahiert — einige Abschnitte können unvollständig sein.
Zusammenfassung in einfacher Sprache

Erwin Härtwich and Yellow Sphere Innovations GmbH sued Knaus Tabbert AG before the Düsseldorf Local Division for infringement of EP 3 356 109 B1, a product-by-process patent for a foam resin structural part used in vehicle frames. The court found infringement, granted an injunction, ordered recall and removal from distribution channels, destruction of infringing products, and awarded EUR 100,000 in preliminary damages, while dismissing both the revocation counterclaim and the third-party counterclaim. The court also held that UPC jurisdiction covers Art. 67 EPC compensation for use during the patent application's publication period.

Angenommene Argumente
Was das Gericht akzeptiert hat — nach Partei.

  • Product-by-process claims cover products with the technical properties conferred by the specified manufacturing process, regardless of how the infringer manufactures the product

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 25 UPCA; German patent law on product-by-process claims

    Hinweis: The court held that the decisive question for product-by-process claims is how the skilled person understands the manufacturing process indications and what conclusions they draw for the technical properties of the resulting product; Knaus Tabbert's structural foam components were found to embody these properties.

  • UPC has jurisdiction over compensation for use of published EP application (Art. 67 EPC period)

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 32(1)(f) UPCA; Art. 24(1)(c) UPCA; Art. 67 EPC

    Hinweis: The court held that compensation for use during the application publication period falls within UPC jurisdiction, applying Art. 67 EPC as national law on the basis of Art. 24(1)(c) UPCA since no unified rule exists. Claimants were required to plead the conditions for each individual member state.

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

  • Patent EP 3 356 109 is invalid (counterclaim for revocation)

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 65 UPCA

    Begründung: The revocation counterclaim was dismissed; the patent was upheld.

  • Third-party counterclaim (Dritt-Widerklage) against Alexander Christ should succeed

    Beklagter

    Begründung: The third-party counterclaim was dismissed.

  • Software-based deactivation of infringing function is an alternative to destruction

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 64 UPCA

    Begründung: The court ordered destruction rather than software-based deactivation, finding that deactivation could only be accepted if it were certain that the product could not be re-enabled into an infringing state.

Zentrale Rechtsgrundsätze
In der Begründung herangezogene Doktrinen und Regeln.
product-by-process claim construction: technical properties conferred by process are decisiveUPC jurisdiction over Art. 67 EPC compensation for use during application publication perioddestruction as corrective measure; software deactivation insufficient unless re-enablement impossiblecosts apportionment where both parties partially succeed

Weitere Fälle zu diesem Grundsatz ansehen.

Hinweise zur Anspruchsauslegung

For product-by-process claims, the court applied a construction focused on what technical properties the claimed manufacturing process confers on the resulting product. The skilled person's understanding of the manufacturing process description and the resulting structural/material properties of the foam resin structural part is the decisive interpretive question, not the specific process steps as such.