CC 17292/2024
2. Apr. 2024·EP3466498 · SEARCH DEVICE FOR AVALANCHE VICTIMS AND METHOD FOR OPERATING A SEARCH DEVICE FOR AVALANCHE VICTIMS
- Verfahrensdetails
- StatusCase Closed (Patent wie erteilt aufrechterhalten)VerfahrensartWiderklage auf NichtigkeitKategorieWiderklage auf Nichtigkeit
- Parteien
- Kläger
- Mammut Sports Group GmbHUnternehmen
- Mammut Sports Group AGUnternehmen
Vertreter- Oliver Jan Jüngst-Bird & Bird LLP
- Moritz Schroeder-Bird & Bird LLP
- Alexander Bothe-Bird & Bird LLP
- Fabian Leimgrubermitwirkend-Thomann Fischer
Beklagte- Ortovox Sportartikel GmbHUnternehmen
Vertreter- Miriam Kiefer-Kather Augenstein
- Robert Knaps-Kather Augenstein
- Michael Siebelmitwirkend-Hofstetter, Schurack & Partner
- Division
- Dusseldorf LD
- Technologie
- Other fieldsConsumer products
- Sprache
- German
- Erste Entscheidung
- 14. Jan. 2025
| Patent nichtig | Median Tage bis zur ersten Entscheidung | |
|---|---|---|
| Gesamt-UPC | 37% (34/91) | 124 |
| Dusseldorf LD | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Ronny Thomas | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Berenice Thom | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Walter Schober | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Erwin Wismeth | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
Vor dem UPC: Mammut Group (22 Verfahren)·Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH (22 Verfahren)
Dieser Streit umfasst 19 weitere Verfahren
UPC CoA 216/2025·UPC CoA 217/2025·UPC CoA 228/2025·UPC CFI 121/2025·UPC CFI 124/2025 und 14 weitere
Starten Sie die kostenlose Testphase, um die Ausgänge zu sehen.
Weitere Verfahren: Dusseldorf LD·2024
- 2025-01-14Counterclaim for revocationÖffentlich
Zusammenfassung: The Düsseldorf Local Division found that Mammut Sports Group AG and GmbH infringed EP 3 466 498 B1 (owned by Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH, relating to a transceiver device for avalanche rescue) and dismissed the counterclaim for revocation, maintaining the patent. The Court granted an injunction, ordered product recall and removal from distribution channels, ordered disclosure of information and accounting, and awarded EUR 3,000 in provisional damages. Indirect infringement was found because Mammut induced end-users to activate the infringing feature. The Court rejected the request for publication of the decision as Ortovox's interests were sufficiently protected by the injunction. 80% of infringement action costs borne by claimant (Ortovox) and 10% each by defendants; counterclaim costs borne equally by defendants.
Rechtsfragen anzeigen (6)
- Direct and indirect patent infringement
- Activation of patented features by end-users
- Novelty and inventive step in counterclaim for revocation
- Corrective measures — destruction, recall, removal from channels
- Publication of decision under Art. 80 UPCA
- Provisional damages award
| Dokumenttitel | Datum | Öffentlich |
|---|---|---|
| Outcome of the Order | 2025-01-27 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Berichtigungsanordnung | 2025-01-27 | Öffentlich |
| 250123 Stellungnahme re Berichtigungsantrag GGS | 2025-01-23 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Gelegenheit zur Stellungnahme | 2025-01-22 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Receipt | 2025-01-22 | Nicht öffentlich |
| 2025-01-21 Berichtigungsantrag Ortovox | 2025-01-21 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Headnote-and-Keywords | 2025-01-14 | Nicht öffentlich |
| DecisionOutcome | 2025-01-14 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Entscheidung | 2025-01-14 | Öffentlich |
| Platzhalter - Upload Recording | 2024-11-28 | Nicht öffentlich |
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH obtained a judgment from the Düsseldorf Local Division finding that Mammut Sports Group AG and GmbH infringed EP 3 466 498 B1, a patent for an avalanche victim search transceiver device, through both direct and indirect infringement — the latter because Mammut guided users to activate the infringing search function in its products. The court dismissed Mammut's counterclaim for revocation, granted injunctive relief including recall and removal from commerce, ordered disclosure and accounting, and awarded EUR 3,000 in provisional damages, but declined to order publication of the judgment as unnecessary given the other remedies.
Direct and indirect infringement of EP 3 466 498 B1 by Mammut Sports Group AG and GmbH
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 25 UPCA; Art. 26 UPCAHinweis: The court found both direct infringement and, critically, indirect infringement because Mammut instructed end-users to activate the infringing feature (a search function in its avalanche transceiver) through product instructions, making Mammut responsible for users' activation.
Novelty and inventive step of EP 3 466 498 B1 upheld; counterclaim for revocation dismissed
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 54 EPC; Art. 56 EPCHinweis: The Düsseldorf court dismissed Mammut's revocation counterclaim, maintaining the patent for an avalanche search device.
Software-based deactivation is not a sufficient alternative to physical destruction if the product could be re-enabled to an infringing state
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 64 UPCAHinweis: Court held that software deactivation is only acceptable if it ensures the product cannot be restored to an infringing configuration; absent such certainty, destruction is required.
Publication of the judgment should be ordered
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 80 UPCABegründung: Court declined under Art. 80 UPCA because Ortovox's interests were already sufficiently protected by the injunction and other remedies granted; publication requires that the claimant's interest in publication outweighs the consequences for the defendant.
Weitere Fälle zu diesem Grundsatz ansehen.