UPC CFI 178/2024
15. Apr. 2024·EP2726230 · METHOD AND DEVICE FOR CONTINUOUSLY PRODUCING A MESH-TYPE SUPPORT
Hauptaktenzeichen: ACT 20004/2024
- Verfahrensdetails
- StatusCase Closed (Keine Verletzung)VerfahrensartVerletzungKategorieHauptverletzungsklage
- Parteien
- Kläger
- Progress Maschinen & Automation AGUnternehmen
Vertreter- Markus Gangl-Torggler & Hofmann Patentanwälte
- Florian Robl-Torggler & Hofmann Patentanwälte
Beklagte- AWM s.r.l.Unternehmen
- SCHNELL S.p.A.Unternehmen
Vertreter- Elisa Viotto-Studio Legale Costa-Creta
- Cristina Schiavone-Manzella & Associati
- Federico Manzella-Manzella & Associati
- Paolo Creta-Studio Legale Costa-Creta
- Francesco Ricotta-Studio Legale Costa-Creta
- Division
- Milan LD
- Technologie
- Mechanical engineeringMachine tools
- Sprache
- English
- Erste Entscheidung
- 17. Juni 2025
- Letzte Entscheidung
- 27. Okt. 2025
- EPA-Einspruch
- EVG Entwicklungs- u. Verwertungs- Gesellschaft m.b.H.Zulässig2017-09-07
- Schlatter Industries AGZulässig2017-10-31
| Verletzung festgestellt | Median Tage bis zur ersten Entscheidung | |
|---|---|---|
| Gesamt-UPC | 53% (62/117) | 124 |
| Milan LD | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Pierluigi Perrotti | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Alima Zana | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Camille Lignières | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Koen Callewaert | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
Vor dem UPC: Progress Maschinen & Automation AG (9 Verfahren)·AWM s.r.l. (9 Verfahren)
Dieser Streit umfasst 5 weitere Verfahren
UPC CoA 921/2025·UPC CFI 432/2024·UPC CFI 286/2023·UPC CFI 287/2023·ORD 9710/2024
Starten Sie die kostenlose Testphase, um die Ausgänge zu sehen.
- 2025-10-27Infringement ActionÖffentlich
Zusammenfassung: The Milan Local Division issued a rectification order under R. 353 RoP correcting an inaccuracy in the header of its 27 October 2025 decision by adding the full list of defendants' legal representatives (Studio Legale Costa-Creta).
Rechtsfragen anzeigen (2)
- R. 353 RoP rectification of clerical error in decision
- Correction of list of parties' representatives
- 2025-10-27revocation counterclaim
Zusammenfassung: - the European Patent EP 2726230 B1 is revoked in its entirety in the territory of all Contracting Member States in which the patent has effect; - the application to amend the patent is dismissed; ... - the infringement action is dismissed;
- 2025-06-17Infringement ActionÖffentlich
Zusammenfassung: The Milan Local Division issued a post-interim-conference order in infringement proceedings between Progress Maschinen & Automation AG and SCHNELL/AWM, deciding on the admissibility of a new auxiliary request, withdrawing certain evidence production requests, and setting the case for oral hearing.
Rechtsfragen anzeigen (3)
- Admissibility of new auxiliary request R. 30.2 RoP
- Evidence production R. 190 RoP
- Case management after interim conference R. 105.5 RoP
| Dokumenttitel | Datum | Öffentlich |
|---|---|---|
| Other Documents | 2026-06-22 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Verfahren abgeschlossen | 2025-11-25 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Order | 2025-11-19 | Öffentlich |
| Anordnung | 2025-11-12 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Order | 2025-11-12 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Cover sheet | 2025-11-03 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Other document Claimant | 2025-11-03 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Receipt | 2025-11-03 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Anordnung | 2025-10-28 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Order | 2025-10-28 | Nicht öffentlich |
Progress Maschinen & Automation AG sued AWM s.r.l. and Schnell s.p.a. for infringement of EP 2 726 230 B1, a patent for a method and device for continuously producing a mesh-type support for construction reinforcement. The Milan Local Division found the patent invalid for lack of novelty (the claimed invention being directly and unambiguously disclosed in prior art including prior use), dismissed the application to amend the patent, and consequently dismissed the infringement action; costs were borne by Progress as the unsuccessful claimant.
EP 2 726 230 B1 lacks novelty over prior art made available to the public by use
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 54 EPCHinweis: The Milan Local Division revoked the patent in its entirety on novelty grounds, applying the principle that an invention is part of the state of the art when disclosed integrally, directly, and unambiguously in a single piece of prior art including prior use.
Technical problem for inventive step cannot use effects requiring additional information not available to the skilled person from the patent application
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 56 EPCHinweis: Court articulated this as a headnote principle in assessing the obviousness of the mesh-production method claims.
Application to amend the patent (auxiliary requests) should be admitted
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: R. 30.2 RoPBegründung: The application to amend the patent was dismissed; the court applied the requirements of R. 30.2 RoP for admissibility of amendment requests and found them not met.
Infringement action for EP 2 726 230 B1
KlägerBegründung: Dismissed as a consequence of the patent being revoked in its entirety.
Weitere Fälle zu diesem Grundsatz ansehen.
- Prior use (Girderflex machine) at EUR 2,000,000 price pointNeuheitsschädlich