- Verfahrensdetails
- StatusCase Closed (Patent verletzt)In der Berufung aufgehoben, 27. Mai 2026VerfahrensartVerletzungKategorieHauptverletzungsklage
- Parteien
- Kläger
- Grundfos Holding A/SUnternehmen
Vertreter- Markus Bölling-Mitscherlich Patent- und Rechtsanwälte
- Christian Ruppmitwirkend-Mitscherlich Patent- und Rechtsanwälte
- Alexander Bachmitwirkend-Mitscherlich Patent- und Rechtsanwälte
Beklagte- Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd.Unternehmen
Vertreter- Nicola Busch-Grünecker Patent- und Rechtsanwälte PartGmbH
- Michael Rüberg-Boehmert & Boehmert
- Oliver Tavenkorn-Boehmert & Boehmert
- Michael (surname Not Fully Stated In Excerpt)
- Ulrich Blumenröder-Grünecker Patent- und Rechtsanwälte PartGmbH
- Stumvoll-Grünecker Patent- und Rechtsanwälte PartGmbH
- Division
- Dusseldorf LD
- Technologie
- Mechanical engineeringEngines, pumps, turbines
- Sprache
- German
- Erste Entscheidung
- 8. Mai 2025
- Letzte Entscheidung
- 4. Sept. 2026
- Berufung
- Aufgehoben durch UPC CoA 622/2025 · 27. Mai 2026
- Aufgehoben durch UPC CoA 623/2025 · 27. Mai 2026
| Verletzung festgestellt | Median Tage bis zur ersten Entscheidung | |
|---|---|---|
| Gesamt-UPC | 53% (62/117) | 124 |
| Dusseldorf LD | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Ronny Thomas | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Berenice Thom | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter András Kupecz | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Merja Heikkinen-Keinänen | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Ulrike Voß | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
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
Starten Sie die kostenlose Testphase, um die Ausgänge zu sehen.
Weitere Verfahren: Dusseldorf LD·2024
- 2026-09-04InfringementÖffentlich
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
- 2025-05-08Infringement 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
| Dokumenttitel | Datum | Öffentlich |
|---|---|---|
| Veröffentlichung der Anordnung | 2026-09-04 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Anordnung | 2026-09-04 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Order | 2026-09-04 | Öffentlich |
| Receipt | 2026-09-03 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Cover sheet | 2026-09-03 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Application document Claimant | 2026-09-03 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Mitteilung | 2026-08-28 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Receipt | 2026-08-28 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Cover sheet | 2026-08-28 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Document Defendant | 2026-08-28 | Nicht öffentlich |
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.
New prior art introduced in defendant's rejoinder to revocation counterclaim constitutes an expansion requiring convincing justification for late filing
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Rule 263 RoPHinweis: 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 RoPHinweis: 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.
New prior art and new invalidity attacks raised for the first time in the rejoinder to revocation counterclaim
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Rule 263 RoPBegründung: Defendant failed to convince the court that due diligence precluded earlier filing of these prior-art attacks; the new material was not admitted.
Weitere Fälle zu diesem Grundsatz ansehen.