UPC CFI 33/2024
26. Jan. 2024·EP2643717 · COLOR-MIXING CONVERGENT OPTICAL SYSTEM
- Verfahrensdetails
- StatusCase Closed (Patent verletzt)VerfahrensartVerletzungKategorieHauptverletzungsklage
- Parteien
- Kläger
- SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme GmbHUnternehmen
Vertreter- Alexander Koller-NOMOS Rechtsanwälte GmbH
- Werner Bargermitwirkend-Barger Piso & Partner Patentanwälte
BeklagteVertreter- Rainer Beetz-SONN Patentanwälte
- Division
- Vienna LD
- Technologie
- Electrical engineeringAudio-visual technology
- InstrumentsOptics
- Sprache
- German
- Erste Entscheidung
- 16. Jan. 2025
| Verletzung festgestellt | Median Tage bis zur ersten Entscheidung | |
|---|---|---|
| Gesamt-UPC | 53% (62/117) | 124 |
| Vienna LD | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Walter Schober | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Mojca Mlakar | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter András Kupecz | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Uwe Schwengelbeck | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
Vor dem UPC: SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme GmbH (11 Verfahren)·STRABAG Infrastructure & Safety Solutions GmbH (4 Verfahren)
Dieser Streit umfasst 3 weitere Verfahren
3 weitere Beklagte zum selben oder einem verwandten Patent
Starten Sie die kostenlose Testphase, um die Ausgänge zu sehen.
- 2025-01-16Infringement ActionÖffentlich
Zusammenfassung: Vienna Local Division found that Strabag Infrastructure & Safety Solutions GmbH infringed SWARCO FUTURIT's European Patent EP 2 643 717. The Court granted an injunction, recall of infringing products from distribution channels, provision of information and destruction of infringing products. Damages were referred to a separate assessment procedure. A validity defence was not considered as no counterclaim for revocation was filed. SWARCO's request to publish the judgment was rejected; Strabag and the intervener were ordered to bear costs.
Rechtsfragen anzeigen (5)
- Patent infringement (traffic signal systems)
- No counterclaim for revocation required to raise invalidity defence (R. 25 RoP)
- Removal from distribution channels vs. recall
- Publication of judgment (Art. 80 UPCA)
- Cost allocation for intervener
- 2024-07-31
Zusammenfassung: Order by Vienna Local Division (UPC_CFI_33/2024, 30 July 2024) admitting Chainzone Technology's application to intervene as third party (Streithilfe) in patent infringement proceedings between SWARCO Futurit and STRABAG, subject to depositing security for costs of EUR 134,000 by 20 August 2024. Chainzone was found to have the requisite legal interest as the allegedly infringing product it purchased is the subject of the infringement claim.
Rechtsfragen anzeigen (3)
- Third-party intervention / Streithilfe (R. 313, 314 RoP)
- Legal interest in proceedings
- Security for costs (R. 158 RoP)
| Dokumenttitel | Datum | Öffentlich |
|---|---|---|
| Verfahren abgeschlossen | 2025-11-20 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Headnote-and-Keywords | 2025-03-25 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Outcome of the Order | 2025-01-16 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Endentscheidung | 2025-01-16 | Öffentlich |
| Verhandlungstermin | 2024-10-01 | Öffentlich |
| Hearing-Dates | 2024-10-01 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Acknowledgement-of-lodging | 2024-09-19 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Rejoinder to the Reply to the Defence | 2024-09-19 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Anordnung | 2024-09-03 | Öffentlich |
| Headnote-and-Keywords | 2024-09-03 | Nicht öffentlich |
SWARCO FUTURIT sued STRABAG Infrastructure & Safety Solutions at the Vienna Local Division for infringement of EP 2 643 717, a patent covering a color-mixing convergent optical system used in traffic signals. The court found infringement, granted an injunction, recall, disclosure, and destruction orders, and awarded SWARCO its costs; the invalidity defence raised by Strabag was held inadmissible because no counterclaim for revocation had been filed. SWARCO's request for publication of the judgment was refused.
Strabag's traffic signal products infringe EP 2 643 717 (color-mixing convergent optical system)
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 25 UPCAHinweis: The Vienna Local Division found direct infringement and granted full injunctive relief including recall and destruction.
invalidity cannot be raised in proceedings where no counterclaim for revocation has been filed under R. 25 and R. 42 RoP
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: R. 25 RoP; R. 42 RoPHinweis: Strabag raised added-matter invalidity as a shield but had not filed a counterclaim for revocation; the court held this bars substantive consideration of the invalidity argument (Leitsatz 1).
permanent removal from distribution channels is an independent measure separate from recall under UPCA
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 63 UPCAHinweis: Court accepted this as a distinct remedy (Leitsatz 2), subject to the infringer having legal and factual ability to carry it out.
intervener who causes additional costs to the winning party should bear at least its own costs
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: R. 315.4 RoP (by analogy)Hinweis: Court derived from R. 315.4 RoP that an intervener is treated like a party for cost purposes and must bear its own costs if the supported party loses.
publication of the judgment in trade press should be ordered
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 80 UPCABegründung: Under Art. 80 UPCA the court has discretion; publication is appropriate only when claimant's interests outweigh prejudice to defendant and are not already secured by other remedies; claimant did not demonstrate a concrete prevention interest.
patent is invalid due to added matter (Überschreitung der Ursprungsoffenbarung)
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: R. 25 RoP; R. 42 RoPBegründung: Because Strabag raised invalidity only as a defence without filing a counterclaim for revocation as required by R. 25 RoP, the court declined to consider the invalidity argument on the merits.
Weitere Fälle zu diesem Grundsatz ansehen.
The patent claims a color-mixing convergent optical system, with disputes touching on whether Strabag's LED traffic light systems embodied the claimed convergent optics; substantive claim construction analysis is in the 27-page body not fully reproduced.