UPClytics
DeutschEnglish
AnmeldenRegistrieren
Alle Fälle anzeigen

CC 65106/2024

—·EP2223589: Beet enclosure with a lockable sheet metal strip

Verletzungs-Hauptverfahren:UPC CFI 338/2024

Verfahrensdetails
Status
—
Verfahrensart
Widerklage Nichtigkeit
Kategorie
Widerklage auf Nichtigkeit
Parteien
Kläger
Vertreter: Lenz Bernecker
Beklagte
Vertreter: Matthias Geitz
Division
Mannheim LD
Richter
Technology
Consumer Goods · Garden Products · Agriculture
Sprache
—
Erste Entscheidung
12. Sept. 2025
Ansprüche
Streitigall
Verletztall
Hinweise: Mannheim LD found Windhager GmbH infringed EP2223589 in Germany, Austria and Luxembourg; revocation counterclaim dismissed; operative order describes infringing product by feature list rather than claim number.
Entscheidungen
  • 2025-09-12
    VerletztUnterlassung angeordnetNichtigkeit (Hauptsache)Counterclaim for revocation

    Decision of the Mannheim Local Division finding infringement of EP 2 223 589 by Windhager GmbH (defendant 1) in Germany, Austria and Luxembourg, ordering an injunction, recall, removal from distribution channels, destruction of infringing products, information disclosure, and a declaration of damages liability. The revocation counterclaim was dismissed. Defendants bear costs. The decision establishes that supplying or offering all components of a patented product designed to be assembled without additional items at the point of use constitutes direct infringement under Art. 25(a) UPCA, and that selling even a single component of such a product when assembly is indicated also constitutes direct infringement.

    Rechtsfragen:Direct infringement Art. 25(a) UPCAIndirect infringementSupplying components designed for assemblyDistinguishing direct and indirect infringement
    Schadenersatz: Haftung festgestellt, Höhe vorbehalten
Dokumente
  • 5301DE6719BB3EFA2BB3F235E9225C8D_de.pdf2025-09-12DE
Zusammenfassung in einfacher Sprache

Bellissa HAAS GmbH sued Windhager GmbH and two of its directors before the Mannheim Local Division for infringement of EP 2 223 589 B1, covering a garden bed enclosure with a lockable sheet metal strip. The court found direct infringement by Windhager GmbH under Art. 25(a) UPCA, adopting the principle that supplying all components of a product designed for simple self-assembly constitutes direct infringement, and that even selling a single such component where assembly is indicated is direct infringement. The revocation counterclaim was dismissed and injunction, recall, destruction, and damages were ordered against Windhager GmbH.

Angenommene Argumente
Was das Gericht akzeptiert hat — nach Partei.

  • Supplying or offering all components of a patented product designed to be assembled at point of use without additional items constitutes direct infringement under Art. 25(a) UPCA

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 25(a) UPCA

    Hinweis: Mannheim Local Division accepted that the supply of all sheet metal strip components together, designed for easy assembly, is direct infringement regardless of whether assembly occurs at the supplier's or customer's premises.

  • Selling even a single component of a patented product constitutes direct infringement where the product comprises at least two identical coordinated components and assembly is indicated or obvious

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 25(a) UPCA

    Hinweis: Court accepted this broader principle for products composed of multiple identical components designed to be combined.

  • Infringement of EP 2 223 589 B1 (bed enclosure with lockable sheet metal strip) by Windhager GmbH in Germany, Austria and Luxembourg

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 25(a) UPCA

    Hinweis: Injunction, recall, removal, destruction, information disclosure and damages declaration granted against Windhager GmbH (defendant 1); individual defendants 2 and 3 (directors) not held personally liable for costs.

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

  • Revocation counterclaim against EP 2 223 589 B1 (bed enclosure with lockable sheet metal strip)

    Beklagter

    Begründung: Dismissed; patent maintained as granted.

  • Personal liability of individual directors (Johann and Stefan Windhager) for costs beyond Windhager GmbH's liability

    Kläger

    Begründung: Court found no indication that costs incurred by the individual director-defendants would not be borne by Windhager GmbH as their employer; individual directors' costs were subsumed within Windhager GmbH's costs obligation.

Zentrale Rechtsgrundsätze
In der Begründung herangezogene Doktrinen und Regeln.
Direct infringement under Art. 25(a) UPCA — supply of all components designed for simple assembly at point of useDirect infringement — sale of a single component of a multi-component product where assembly is indicated or obviousDistinction between direct and indirect infringement in component supply scenariosCosts allocation for director-defendants sued in their capacity as directors

Weitere Fälle zu diesem Grundsatz ansehen.

Hinweise zur Anspruchsauslegung

EP 2 223 589 B1 covers a bed enclosure for garden beds consisting of at least two sheet metal strips that are connectable at their ends using a tongue-and-slot locking mechanism that is pushed on vertically. The key claim construction question was whether the supply of components (metal strips) in their designed-for-assembly form already falls within the scope of Art. 25(a) UPCA direct infringement or only within Art. 26 UPCA indirect infringement. The court held that where the product is specifically designed so that all its components can be assembled simply at the point of use without additional items, supply of all components already constitutes direct infringement.