UPClytics
Alle Fälle anzeigen

UPC CFI 11/2024

16. Jan. 2024·EP2778423 · Centrifugal pump assembly

Hauptaktenzeichen: ACT 2097/2024

Verfahrensdetails
Status
Case Closed (Patent verletzt)In der Berufung aufgehoben, 27. Mai 2026
Verfahrensart
Verletzung
Kategorie
Hauptverletzungsklage
Parteien
Kläger
Beklagte
Vertreter
Division
Dusseldorf LD
Technologie
  • Mechanical engineering
    Engines, pumps, turbines
Sprache
German
Erste Entscheidung
8. Mai 2025
Letzte Entscheidung
4. Sept. 2026
Im Vergleich
Die Bilanz des Gerichts für diese Art von Verfahren, gezählt in erstinstanzlichen Entscheidungen. Eine Zahl in Klammern gibt an, auf wie vielen Entscheidungen eine Quote beruht.
Verletzung festgestelltMedian Tage bis zur ersten Entscheidung
Gesamt-UPC53% (62/117)124
Dusseldorf LDGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Ronny ThomasGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Berenice ThomGesperrtGesperrt
Richter András KupeczGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Merja Heikkinen-KeinänenGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Ulrike VoßGesperrtGesperrt

Vor dem UPC: Grundfos Holding A/S (7 Verfahren)·Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd. (6 Verfahren)

Dieser Streit umfasst 5 weitere Verfahren

UPC CoA 622/2025·UPC CoA 623/2025·UPC CFI 426/2025·CC 26515/2024·UPC APP 8530/2025

1 weitere Beklagte zum selben oder einem verwandten Patent

UPC CFI 835/2025

Starten Sie die kostenlose Testphase, um die Ausgänge zu sehen.

Weitere Verfahren: Dusseldorf LD·2024

Entscheidungen
  • 2026-09-04
    InfringementÖffentlich

    Zusammenfassung: Düsseldorf Local Division order (Panel 1, 4 Sep 2026) in Grundfos Holding A/S v Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd. (EP 2 778 423 B1): the EUR 150,000 security for the costs of the appeal proceedings UPC_CoA_622/2025 and 623/2025 (2 x EUR 75,000, ordered by the Court of Appeal on 19 Dec 2025 and deposited by the defendant) is released by analogy to R. 352.2 RoP, after the defendant paid the EUR 38,230.10 fixed in the costs decision of 7 Aug 2026 (App_2262/2026) and the claimant consented. The order also records that the Court of Appeal had set aside the 8 May 2025 first-instance decision, revoked claims 1-3, 5 and 11 in part and dismissed the infringement action.

    Rechtsfragen anzeigen (2)
    • R. 352.2 RoP applied by analogy to release a security for costs once the costs order is satisfied
    • security for appeal costs ordered by the Court of Appeal (UPC_CoA_622/2025, 623/2025)
  • 2025-05-27

    Zusammenfassung: The Düsseldorf Local Division issued a rectification order (R. 353 RoP) correcting obvious errors in the operative part of the decision issued on 8 May 2025 in the infringement action by Grundfos Holding A/S against Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd. concerning EP 2 778 423 B1. The corrections addressed typographical cross-referencing errors in the accounting and rendering of accounts obligations. The defendant did not oppose the rectification.

    Rechtsfragen anzeigen (2)
    • Rectification of decision (R. 353 RoP)
    • Correction of obvious errors in operative part
  • 2025-05-08
    Infringement ActionÖffentlich

    Zusammenfassung: Düsseldorf Local Division final decision in infringement action (with revocation counterclaim) concerning a pump patent (EP 2 778 423 B1), by Grundfos against a Chinese manufacturer (Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump). The court found infringement, granted an injunction, ordered accounting/information, recall from distribution channels, and declared liability for damages from 28 February 2018. The revocation counterclaim was dismissed. Defendant bears all costs. The court addressed the admissibility of new prior art raised for the first time in the defendant's rejoinder to the revocation counterclaim, holding that such new attacks require a convincing explanation of why they could not have been included earlier.

    Rechtsfragen anzeigen (5)
    • Patent infringement
    • Revocation counterclaim dismissed
    • New prior art in rejoinder (R. 263 RoP)
    • Admissibility of late prior art attacks
    • Pump technology
  • 2024-09-13

    Zusammenfassung: Early procedural order by Düsseldorf Local Division in Grundfos v Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump deciding under R. 37.2 RoP to proceed jointly with infringement action and counterclaim for revocation under Art. 33(3)(a) UPCA. The decision was taken early to allow timely assignment of the technically qualified judge given part-time panel staffing constraints.

    Rechtsfragen anzeigen (1)
    • Early decision on joint handling of infringement and revocation under Art. 33(3)(a) UPCA / R. 37.2 RoP
DokumenttitelDatumÖffentlich
Veröffentlichung der Anordnung2026-09-04Nicht öffentlich
Anordnung2026-09-04Nicht öffentlich
Order2026-09-04Öffentlich
Receipt2026-09-03Nicht öffentlich
Cover sheet2026-09-03Nicht öffentlich
Application document Claimant2026-09-03Nicht öffentlich
Mitteilung2026-08-28Nicht öffentlich
Receipt2026-08-28Nicht öffentlich
Cover sheet2026-08-28Nicht öffentlich
Document Defendant2026-08-28Nicht öffentlich
Zusammenfassung in einfacher Sprache

Grundfos Holding A/S brought an infringement action against Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co. Ltd. at the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning EP 2 778 423 B1, a centrifugal pump patent. The court found infringement and dismissed the revocation counterclaim, granting an injunction, accounting, recall, and damages from 28 February 2018. A notable procedural ruling held that new prior art or new invalidity attacks first raised in the rejoinder to the revocation counterclaim constitute an expansion of the counterclaim under R. 263 RoP and are admitted only if the defendant shows due diligence and absence of undue prejudice to the claimant.

Angenommene Argumente
Was das Gericht akzeptiert hat — nach Partei.
  • New prior art introduced in defendant's rejoinder to revocation counterclaim constitutes an expansion requiring convincing justification for late filing

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Rule 263 RoP

    Hinweis: Düsseldorf LD held that new prior art in the rejoinder to the revocation counterclaim is an expansion of the counterclaim; admission requires the defendant to convince the court the documents could not have been filed with the original counterclaim and that admission would not unduly prejudice the claimant.

  • Same rule applies when already-filed prior art is first used for a new invalidity attack only in the rejoinder

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Rule 263 RoP

    Hinweis: Court extended the same diligence-and-prejudice test to situations where a prior-art document already in the file is first deployed for a new novelty/inventive-step attack in the rejoinder.

Zurückgewiesene Argumente
Was das Gericht nicht akzeptiert hat — und warum.
  • New prior art and new invalidity attacks raised for the first time in the rejoinder to revocation counterclaim

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Rule 263 RoP

    Begründung: Defendant failed to convince the court that due diligence precluded earlier filing of these prior-art attacks; the new material was not admitted.