UPC CFI 115/2025
14. Feb. 2025·EP3466498 · SEARCH DEVICE FOR AVALANCHE VICTIMS AND METHOD FOR OPERATING A SEARCH DEVICE FOR AVALANCHE VICTIMS
- Verfahrensdetails
- StatusCase ClosedVerfahrensartAllgemeinKategorieHauptverletzungsklage
- Parteien
- Kläger
- Mammut Sports Group GmbHUnternehmen
- Mammut Sports Group AGUnternehmen
Vertreter- Oliver Jan Jüngst-Bird & Bird LLP
- Division
- Dusseldorf LD
- Technologie
- Other fieldsConsumer products
- Sprache
- German
| 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 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·2025
| Dokumenttitel | Datum | Öffentlich |
|---|---|---|
| Headnote-and-Keywords | 2025-04-22 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Application-For-Costs-Decision-Outcome | 2025-04-22 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Entscheidung im Kostenfestsetzungsverfahren | 2025-04-22 | Öffentlich |
| Entscheidung im Kostenfestsetzungsverfahren | 2025-04-22 | Öffentlich |
| Receipt | 2025-03-10 | Nicht öffentlich |
| 250310 Stn. re Kosten | 2025-03-10 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Gelegenheit zur Stellungnahme | 2025-03-01 | Nicht öffentlich |
| 2025-02-28_Stellungnahme_Ortovox_Kostenfestsetzung_signed.pdf | 2025-02-28 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Gelegenheit zur Stellungnahme | 2025-02-17 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Panel-Appointment | 2025-02-14 | Nicht öffentlich |
Hartmann Packaging A/S (claimant) brought an infringement action against Omni-Pac Ekco GmbH and Omni-Pac GmbH concerning an egg display and distribution package patent. The Düsseldorf Local Division dismissed the infringement action and partially granted the defendants' counterclaim for revocation, revoking method and product claims of EP 2 755 901 B1 while dismissing the remainder. Key principles established include: the standard for 'same invention' under Art. 87 EPC mirrors the added matter test, and selection from a limited range of known materials does not confer inventive step.
Partial revocation of EP 2 755 901 B1: counterclaim for revocation succeeded in part (claims 1-8 of the egg packaging patent revoked)
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 65 UPCA; Art. 56 EPCHinweis: Düsseldorf Local Division upheld the partial invalidity counterclaim, revoking claims as listed in the order (egg packaging display and method claims).
Priority entitlement: 'same invention' under Art. 87 EPC requires that the skilled person can derive the claim subject-matter directly and unambiguously from the priority application as a whole using common general knowledge
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 87 EPCHinweis: Court adopted the standard that the 'same invention' assessment for priority corresponds to the added matter disclosure standard.
Selection of material from a limited class of known suitable materials does not establish inventive step
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 56 EPCHinweis: Court held that where the skilled person knows multiple suitable materials and selects one, no special skill is needed and no inventive step is established.
Infringement of EP 2 755 901 B1 and/or EP 3 466 498 by defendants' egg packaging products
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: EP2755901B1; EP3466498Begründung: Infringement action dismissed in its entirety; the Court found no infringement, though specific claim-by-claim analysis is not captured in the available excerpt.
Counterclaim for revocation dismissed in remaining parts beyond the partially revoked claims
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 65 UPCABegründung: Not all revocation attacks succeeded; the remaining portion of the counterclaim was dismissed.
Weitere Fälle zu diesem Grundsatz ansehen.
Note: the case file data lists patent_title as an avalanche victim search device and patents EP3466498 and EP2755901, but the excerpt text and parties (Hartmann Packaging / Omni-Pac) relate to an egg packaging case (EP2755901B1 egg display package). The case metadata appears to contain a mismatch. The analysis is based on the excerpt content which concerns the egg packaging patent. The technical issues addressed are: priority validity, inventive step in material selection, equivalence in the infringement context.