UPC Analytics
DEEN
Übersicht · Eingereicht: 14. Feb. 2025

UPC_CFI_115/2025

SEARCH DEVICE FOR AVALANCHE VICTIMS AND METHOD FOR OPERATING A SEARCH DEVICE FOR AVALANCHE VICTIMS

VerletzungHauptverletzungsklageDusseldorf LDGenericCase Closed
ÜbersichtEntscheidungenBegründungZitateDokumenteZeitverlauf
Abdeckung: Teilweise.Begründung teilweise extrahiert — einige Abschnitte können unvollständig sein.
Zusammenfassung in einfacher Sprache

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.

Angenommene Argumente
Was das Gericht akzeptiert hat — nach Partei.

  • 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 EPC

    Hinweis: 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 EPC

    Hinweis: 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 EPC

    Hinweis: 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.

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

  • Infringement of EP 2 755 901 B1 and/or EP 3 466 498 by defendants' egg packaging products

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: EP2755901B1; EP3466498

    Begründung: 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 UPCA

    Begründung: Not all revocation attacks succeeded; the remaining portion of the counterclaim was dismissed.

Zentrale Rechtsgrundsätze
In der Begründung herangezogene Doktrinen und Regeln.
priority: 'same invention' standard under Art. 87 EPC equated to added matter disclosure standardinventive step: material selection from limited class of known materials not inventiveequivalence assessment in infringementpartial revocation of patent on counterclaimcosts split proportionally where each party partially succeeds

Weitere Fälle zu diesem Grundsatz ansehen.

Hinweise zur Anspruchsauslegung

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.