UPC CFI 292/2023
4. Sept. 2023·EP3883277 Einheitspatent · METHOD FOR COMMUNICATING SPATIALLY LOCATED INFORMATION TO A MOBILE TERMINAL
- Verfahrensdetails
- StatusCase ClosedVerfahrensartEinstweilige VerfügungKategorieEinstweilige Maßnahmen
- Parteien
- Kläger
- SES-imagotag SAUnternehmen
Vertreter- Anton Horn-Heuking
- Alexandre Hoffmann-Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
Beklagte- Hanshow Technology Co. LtdUnternehmen
- Hanshow Germany GmbHUnternehmen
- Hanshow France SASUnternehmen
- Hanshow Netherlands B.V.Unternehmen
Vertreter- Roland Küppers-Taylor Wessing
- Division
- Munich LD
- Technologie
- Electrical engineeringAudio-visual technology · Digital communication · Computer technology · IT methods for management
- InstrumentsMeasurement
- Sprache
- German
- Erste Entscheidung
- 20. Dez. 2023
- Letzte Entscheidung
- 11. Okt. 2024
- EPA-Einspruch
- Hanshow Germany GmbHZulässig2023-10-19
| Einstweilige Verfügung erlassen | Median Tage bis zur ersten Entscheidung | |
|---|---|---|
| Gesamt-UPC | 54% (38/70) | 124 |
| Munich LD | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Matthias Zigann | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Tobias Pichlmaier | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Margot Kokke | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Uwe Schwengelbeck | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
Vor dem UPC: SES-imagotag SA (9 Verfahren)·Hanshow Technology Co. Ltd (6 Verfahren)
Dieser Streit umfasst 6 weitere Verfahren
UPC CoA 285/2025·UPC CFI 84/2025·UPC CoA 618/2024·UPC APP 3393/2024·UPC CoA 1/2024 und 1 weitere
Starten Sie die kostenlose Testphase, um die Ausgänge zu sehen.
- 2023-12-20Application for provisional measuresÖffentlich
Zusammenfassung: The Munich Local Division dismissed SES-imagotag's application for provisional measures against Hanshow Technology and related entities concerning electronic shelf label technology, finding that infringement of EP3883277 had not been established with sufficient certainty. The court also ordered SES-imagotag to bear the costs including those of the protective letter filed by the respondents.
Rechtsfragen anzeigen (3)
- Provisional measures: infringement not established with sufficient certainty
- Claim interpretation using earlier claim versions as an aid
- Costs of protective letter as recoverable costs for successful respondent
| Dokumenttitel | Datum | Öffentlich |
|---|---|---|
| Outcome of the Order | 2025-07-17 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Abschluss Kostenfestsetzungsverfahren | 2025-07-17 | Öffentlich |
| Outcome of the Order | 2025-07-17 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Schlussbehandlung Wiedereinsetzungantrag | 2025-07-17 | Öffentlich |
| Outcome of the Order | 2025-07-17 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Schlussbehandlung Wiedereinsetzungantrag | 2025-07-17 | Öffentlich |
| Outcome of the Order | 2025-07-17 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Schlussbehandlung Wiedereinsetzungantrag | 2025-07-17 | Öffentlich |
| Receipt | 2025-07-14 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Zustimmung zum Antrag auf Rücknahme (Regel 265) der Gegenseite | 2025-07-10 | Nicht öffentlich |
SES-imagotag applied for provisional measures before the Munich Local Division against Hanshow Technology and related entities concerning EP 3 883 277 (electronic shelf label communication technology). The court dismissed the application after finding that infringement was not established with sufficient certainty, applying claim construction that used the original pre-amendment claim language as an interpretive aid. SES-imagotag was ordered to pay all costs including those incurred by Hanshow in filing its protective letter.
Infringement of EP 3 883 277 by Hanshow's electronic shelf label products not established with sufficient certainty
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 62 UPCA; R.211 RoP (provisional measures standard)Hinweis: The court was not sufficiently convinced of infringement after examining claim interpretation and the accused products; the PI application was therefore dismissed.
Original claim version of a European patent may be used as a claim construction aid in connection with amendments made during prosecution
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 69 EPC and Protocol on InterpretationHinweis: This headnote principle was applied to interpret the scope of the granted claims by reference to earlier claim language, narrowing the scope relative to the applicant's preferred reading.
Costs of a protective letter filed under R.207.8 RoP are recoverable by a successful respondent as 'other costs of the proceedings'
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 69(1) UPCA; R.207.8 RoPHinweis: The protective letter becomes part of the provisional measures proceedings upon referral; its costs are normally to be borne by an unsuccessful applicant.
Infringement of EP 3 883 277 sufficiently established to justify provisional measures including injunction
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 62 UPCA; Art. 69 EPCBegründung: The court was not sufficiently certain of infringement after claim construction and analysis of the accused products; infringement was not established with the requisite degree of certainty for provisional measures.
Weitere Fälle zu diesem Grundsatz ansehen.
The Munich Local Division used the prosecution history (original claim version before amendment) as an interpretive tool under Art. 69 EPC to determine the scope of EP 3 883 277's claims directed at a method for communicating spatially located information to a mobile terminal. This resulted in a narrower scope that the accused Hanshow electronic shelf label products did not meet with sufficient certainty.