UPC CFI 16/2024
18. Jan. 2024·EP3466498 · SEARCH DEVICE FOR AVALANCHE VICTIMS AND METHOD FOR OPERATING A SEARCH DEVICE FOR AVALANCHE VICTIMS
Hauptaktenzeichen: ACT 2379/2024
- Verfahrensdetails
- StatusCase Closed (Patent verletzt)VerfahrensartVerletzungKategorieHauptverletzungsklage
- Parteien
- Kläger
- Ortovox Sportartikel GmbHUnternehmen
Vertreter- Miriam Kiefer-Kather Augenstein
- Robert Knaps-Kather Augenstein
- Michael Siebelmitwirkend-Hofstetter, Schurack & Partner
Beklagte- Mammut Sports Group AGUnternehmen
- Mammut Sports Group GmbHUnternehmen
Vertreter- Oliver Jan Jüngst-Bird & Bird LLP
- Moritz Schroeder-Bird & Bird LLP
- Alexander Bothe-Bird & Bird LLP
- Fabian Leimgrubermitwirkend-Thomann Fischer
- Division
- Dusseldorf LD
- Technologie
- Other fieldsConsumer products
- Sprache
- German
- Erste Entscheidung
- 14. Jan. 2025
| 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: Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH (22 Verfahren)·Mammut Group (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·2024
- 2025-01-14Infringement ActionÖffentlich
Zusammenfassung: Final decision in infringement action (with counterclaim for revocation) concerning an avalanche transceiver patent. The Düsseldorf Local Division found direct and indirect infringement by the Mammut defendants, granted an injunction, ordered recall and removal from distribution channels, ordered provision of accounts, and declared liability for damages (with EUR 3,000 preliminary damages awarded). The counterclaim for revocation was dismissed. Costs were split: claimant to bear 80%, each defendant 10% of infringement action costs; defendants to bear costs of revocation counterclaim.
Rechtsfragen anzeigen (8)
- Direct patent infringement
- Indirect patent infringement
- Novelty
- Inventive step
- Destruction of infringing goods
- Recall from distribution channels
- Publication of decision (Art. 80 UPCA)
- Activation of patented features by end users
| Dokumenttitel | Datum | Öffentlich |
|---|---|---|
| Case Closure Formal Check | 2025-09-12 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Gelegenheit zur Stellungnahme | 2025-01-22 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Receipt | 2025-01-22 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Receipt | 2025-01-22 | Nicht öffentlich |
| 2025-01-21 Berichtigungsantrag Ortovox | 2025-01-21 | Nicht öffentlich |
| 2025-01-21 Ortovox Mitteilung Vollstreckungsabsicht | 2025-01-21 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Headnote-and-Keywords | 2025-01-14 | Nicht öffentlich |
| DecisionOutcome | 2025-01-14 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Entscheidung | 2025-01-14 | Öffentlich |
| Verlegung Termin zur Verkündung einer Entscheidung | 2024-12-18 | Öffentlich |
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH sued Mammut Sports Group AG and GmbH before the Düsseldorf Local Division for infringement of EP 3 466 498 B1, a patent for an avalanche search transceiver. The court found both direct and indirect infringement (including through customer-activated functions), granted a permanent injunction, ordered recall and removal from distribution channels, and declared Mammut's liability for damages (with EUR 3,000 preliminary award). The revocation counterclaim was dismissed and costs were split with claimant bearing 80% of infringement action costs and defendants bearing costs of the revocation counterclaim.
Direct and indirect infringement established: defendant must bear responsibility for customer activation of infringing functions where it instructs customers to activate and knowingly exploits such activation
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 25, 26 UPCAHinweis: The Düsseldorf Local Division held that where a device in its offered state requires customer activation of certain functions to realise all patent claim features, the infringer is liable where it instructs or knowingly exploits such activation; both direct and indirect infringement were established.
Destruction ordered rather than software deactivation; deactivation only acceptable if re-enabling to infringing state is impossible
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 64 UPCAHinweis: The court ordered destruction unless software deactivation would reliably and permanently prevent the device from being re-enabled in an infringing state.
Publication of decision not warranted where claimant's protection already addressed by other measures
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 80 UPCAHinweis: The court exercised its discretion under Art. 80 UPCA and declined to order publication, finding that the claimant's interests were already adequately addressed by the injunction and other corrective measures.
Patent EP 3 466 498 is invalid (counterclaim for revocation) — novelty and inventive step
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 65 UPCA; Art. 54, 56 EPCBegründung: The revocation counterclaim was dismissed; the court found the patent valid, upholding novelty and inventive step.
Weitere Fälle zu diesem Grundsatz ansehen.
The key claim construction issue concerned whether the accused avalanche transceiver in its offered state realised all features of the patent claim. The court held that where customer activation of certain functions is needed, liability attaches when the defendant instructs or knowingly exploits such activation, bridging the gap between the device as offered and the claimed device as fully realised.