UPC CFI 106/2025
28. Feb. 2025·EP3156843 · DEVICE AND METHOD FOR THREE-DIMENSIONAL RECONSTRUCTION OF THE HEAD AND BODY
- Verfahrensdetails
- StatusCase Closed (Patent wie erteilt aufrechterhalten)VerfahrensartWiderklage auf NichtigkeitKategorieWiderklage auf Nichtigkeit
- Parteien
- Kläger
- Canfield Scientific GmbHUnternehmen
- Canfield Scientific s.r.l.Unternehmen
- ESTHETEC SASUnternehmen
- Canfield Scientific Europe B.V.Unternehmen
- Canfield Scientific, Inc.Unternehmen
Vertreter- Miriam Kiefer-Kather Augenstein
- Benjamin Pesch-Kather Augenstein
- Benedikt Walesch, Ll.m.-Kather Augenstein
- Bernhard Thummitwirkend-Thum & Partner
Beklagte- QUANTIFICARE S.A.Unternehmen
Vertreter- Felix Klopmeier-Lang & Rahmann Rechtsanwälte PartG mbB
- Nicht genannt-Michalski Hüttermann & Partner Patentanwälte mbB
- Division
- Dusseldorf LD
- Technologie
- InstrumentsOptics
- Sprache
- German
- Erste Entscheidung
- 23. Apr. 2026
| Patent nichtig | Median Tage bis zur ersten Entscheidung | |
|---|---|---|
| Gesamt-UPC | 37% (34/91) | 124 |
| Dusseldorf LD | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Ronny Thomas | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Jule Schumacher | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Peter Agergaard | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Stefan Wilhelm | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
Vor dem UPC: Canfield Scientific GmbH (4 Verfahren)·QUANTIFICARE S.A. (5 Verfahren)
Dieser Streit umfasst 3 weitere Verfahren
1 weitere Beklagte zum selben oder einem verwandten Patent
Starten Sie die kostenlose Testphase, um die Ausgänge zu sehen.
Weitere Verfahren: Dusseldorf LD·2025
- 2026-04-23Counterclaim for revocationÖffentlich
Zusammenfassung: The UPC Local Division Düsseldorf found that EP 3 156 843 (a stereophotogrammetry device and method for 3D body reconstruction) was directly infringed by the respondents' Canfield Vectra H2 imaging system in Belgium, France, Italy, and the Netherlands. The court granted an injunction, recall, removal from distribution channels, disclosure of information, provisional damages of EUR 20,000, and a declaration of liability for further damages, while dismissing the defendants' counterclaim for revocation in its entirety.
Rechtsfragen anzeigen (11)
- Infringement of claims 1 and 14 of EP 3 156 843 by Canfield Vectra H2 stereophotogrammetry system
- Territorial scope of UPC injunction under Art. 34 UPCA including 'carve out' of Germany due to parallel German proceedings
- Claim construction: whether dual optics require two separate optical systems without moving parts
- Claim construction: whether the signalling of target distance requires two temporally separate steps
- Validity of EP 3 156 843: lack of inventive step counterclaim by respondents
- Standing/passive legitimation of Defendant 1 (German subsidiary) for acts in other contracting member states
- Limitation/prescription under Art. 72 UPCA for damages and ancillary claims
- Provisional damages under R. 119 RoP
- Provisional reimbursement of costs under R. 150.2 RoP
- Security for enforcement under Art. 82(2) UPCA
- Confidentiality order as condition precedent to disclosure obligation
| Dokumenttitel | Datum | Öffentlich |
|---|---|---|
| Receipt | 2026-06-23 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Cover sheet | 2026-06-23 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Document Claimant | 2026-06-23 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Receipt | 2026-05-18 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Cover sheet | 2026-05-18 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Exhibit Applicant | 2026-05-18 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Application document Applicant | 2026-05-18 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Verfahren abgeschlossen | 2026-04-23 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Entscheidung | 2026-04-23 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Decision | 2026-04-23 | Öffentlich |
An infringing act established in one Contracting Member State (Germany, even under a procedural 'carve out') is sufficient to issue an injunction covering all Contracting Member States where the patent is in force under Art. 34 UPCA
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 34 UPCAThe dual optics feature of claim 1 does not require two separate optical systems without moving parts; the patent's teaching exploits depth of field and claim 1 does not exclude moving parts
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 69 EPC / claim construction principlesConvergence of light beams at the target distance constitutes the required 'signalling' under claim 1 without a temporally separate second step
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 69 EPC / claim constructionInfringement of claims 1 and 14 by Canfield Vectra H2, including use of the method in clinical study support and training
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 25(a) and 25(b) UPCANo prescription under Art. 72 UPCA because claimant only acquired knowledge of infringing acts in July/August 2020 (when infringement analysis and warning letter were issued)
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 72 UPCAProvisional damages of EUR 20,000 are warranted under R. 119 RoP to cover anticipated costs of the quantum proceedings
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: R. 119 RoP; Art. 68 UPCAProvisional cost reimbursement of EUR 90,000 for the counterclaim for revocation is justified at 50% of the reimbursement ceiling
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 69(1) UPCA; R. 150.2 RoP
Lack of inventive step of EP 3 156 843 based on multiple prior art combinations including Wolf 'Elements of Photogrammetry', VECTRA H1 User Guide, WO 2010/012722, WO 2010/097572, and related art
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 138(1)(a) EPC; Art. 65 UPCAClaim 1 requires dual optics without moving parts and with two fully separate optical systems
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 69 EPC / claim constructionSignalling must be a distinct temporally separate step following establishment of target distance
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 69 EPC / claim constructionClaimant lacked passive standing against Defendant 1 for acts in non-German contracting member states because only German infringement was alleged and Germany was carved out
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 34 UPCAInjunction should be territorially limited per defendant to countries where that defendant's infringing acts were individually proven
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 34 UPCA; UPC_CFI_440/2023Claims for damages and ancillary relief accruing before 26 September 2019 are time-barred under Art. 72 UPCA
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 72 UPCAEnforcement should be stayed pending provision of a bank guarantee of EUR 1,800,000 due to catastrophic potential harm to respondents
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 82(2) UPCA; R. 352.1 RoPDisclosure obligation should be subject to a confidentiality order restricting access to claimant's legal representatives and one non-sales employee
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 67 UPCAThree US family patents were held invalid by the PTAB in IPR proceedings on substantially the same prior art, indicating the patent lacks inventive step
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 138(1)(a) EPC