UPC CFI 316/2024

Indirect infringement of EP 2 061 575 B1 by Altech Makina's supply of essential components

Hinweis: Court found indirect patent infringement and granted an injunction with removal from channels of commerce.

Revocation claimant must not only name prior art documents but explain their disclosure and how the skilled person would combine them to arrive at the invention without inventive activity

Hinweis: Court held the revocation counterclaim failed because defendant did not adequately explain why and how the skilled person would have combined the named prior art documents.

Patent EP 2 061 575 B1 lacks inventive step based on named prior art documents (revocation counterclaim)

Begründung: Merely naming prior art documents is insufficient; the revocation claimant must explain their content and specifically detail how the skilled person would combine them to arrive at the claimed solution without inventive activity.

Recall, removal from channels of commerce, and destruction ordered for indirectly infringing products

Begründung: Recall, removal and destruction are generally not available for products only challenged on the basis of indirect infringement.

Interim award of lump-sum damages (R. 119 RoP) without specific factual basis

Begründung: R. 119 RoP requires sufficient factual basis for a lump-sum award; claimant's submission must show the claim is based on a plausible estimate of specific facts.

Exhaustion defence: products supplied by patent holder exhaust patent rights

Begründung: Exhaustion defence did not succeed on the facts (court found infringement); the underlying principles were addressed but the defence failed.