UPClytics
DEEN
AnmeldenTesten
Alle Fälle anzeigen

UPC CFI 351/2024

1. Juli 2024·EP3686683 Einheitspatent · DEVELOPER REPLENISHING CONTAINER AND DEVELOPER REPLENISHING SYSTEM

Folgen
Verfahrensdetails
Status
Case Closed (Patent verletzt)
Verfahrensart
Verletzung
Kategorie
Hauptverletzungsklage
Parteien
Kläger
Vertreter
Beklagte
Vertreter
Division
Dusseldorf LD
Richter
Technologie
  • Instruments
    Optics
Sprache
English
Erste Entscheidung
20. Nov. 2025
Letzte Entscheidung
11. Feb. 2026
EPA-Einspruch
  • Katun Germany GmbHZulässig2024-12-13
  • Katun (E.D.C.) B.V.Zulässig2024-12-13
  • Katun CorporationZulässig2024-12-13
  • General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd.Zulässig2024-12-13
Im Vergleich
Die Bilanz des Gerichts für diese Art von Verfahren, gezählt in erstinstanzlichen Entscheidungen. Eine Zahl in Klammern gibt an, auf wie vielen Entscheidungen eine Quote beruht.
Verletzung festgestelltMedian Tage bis zur ersten Entscheidung
Gesamt-UPC53% (62/117)124
Dusseldorf LDGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Ronny ThomasGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Jule SchumacherGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Marije KnijffGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Stefanie PhilippsGesperrtGesperrt

Vor dem UPC: Canon Kabushiki Kaisha (2 Verfahren)·Katun Germany GmbH (2 Verfahren)

14 Tage kostenlos testenBereits Nutzer? Anmelden
Verwandte Verfahren
Alle Verfahren zu diesem Patent

Dieser Streit umfasst 1 weitere Verfahren

UPC CFI 595/2024

Starten Sie die kostenlose Testphase, um die Ausgänge zu sehen.

Weitere Verfahren: Dusseldorf LD·2024

Entscheidungen
  • 2026-02-11
    Infringement ActionÖffentlich

    Zusammenfassung: The Düsseldorf Local Division found Canon's developer supply container patent EP 3 686 683 infringed by Katun and General Plastic entities, granting an injunction and ordering defendants to publish the operative part of the decision on their websites; the counterclaim for revocation was dismissed.

    Rechtsfragen anzeigen (3)
    • Patent infringement (developer supply container)
    • Counterclaim for revocation dismissed
    • Publication of decision on defendant's website (Art. 80 UPCA)
  • 2025-12-29
    Infringement ActionÖffentlich

    Zusammenfassung: The Düsseldorf Local Division addressed Canon's request for simultaneous interpretation from English into Japanese during the oral hearing, for corporate representatives joining remotely from Japan.

    Rechtsfragen anzeigen (2)
    • Request for simultaneous interpretation (R. 109 RoP)
    • Remote participation by Japanese corporate representatives
  • 2025-12-10
    Öffentlich

    Zusammenfassung: The Düsseldorf Local Division issued a post-interim-conference order in the Canon v. Katun proceedings, setting the feature breakdown of claim 1 of EP 3 686 683 to be used at the oral hearing.

    Rechtsfragen anzeigen (2)
    • Post-interim-conference order (R. 105.5 RoP)
    • Feature breakdown of patent claim
  • 2025-11-20
    Öffentlich

    Zusammenfassung: The Düsseldorf Local Division granted Canon's application for a further round of written pleadings under R. 36 RoP against Katun, to address the EPO Opposition Division's preliminary opinion and additional test purchases of allegedly infringing toner cartridge products.

    Rechtsfragen anzeigen (3)
    • R. 36 RoP further pleadings based on new evidence
    • EPO preliminary opinion
    • Additional test purchases - new model numbers
  • 2025-06-12
    Öffentlich

    Zusammenfassung: Procedural order in Canon v. Katun/General Plastic infringement action. The Düsseldorf Local Division decided under R. 37.2 RoP to proceed jointly with both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation (Art. 33(3)(a) UPCA) for reasons of efficiency, allowing validity and infringement to be decided on a unified factual record.

    Rechtsfragen anzeigen (2)
    • Joint hearing of infringement action and counterclaim for revocation under Art. 33(3)(a) UPCA
    • Early decision on procedural approach under R. 37.2 RoP
Dokumente
Alle 316 Dokumente anzeigen
DokumenttitelDatumÖffentlich
Mitteilung2026-09-09Nicht öffentlich
Anordnung2026-05-04Nicht öffentlich
Order2026-05-04Öffentlich
Anordnung2026-04-30Nicht öffentlich
Order2026-04-30Öffentlich
Receipt2026-03-12Nicht öffentlich
Cover sheet2026-03-12Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit Defendant2026-03-12Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit Defendant2026-03-12Nicht öffentlich
Application document Defendant2026-03-12Nicht öffentlich
Abdeckung: Teilweise.Begründung teilweise extrahiert — einige Abschnitte können unvollständig sein.
Zusammenfassung in einfacher Sprache

Canon Kabushiki Kaisha (Japan) sued Katun Germany GmbH, Katun (E.D.C.) B.V., Katun Corporation (US), and General Plastic Industrial Co. (Taiwan) for infringement of EP 3 686 683 B1, a patent for a developer (toner) supply container for printers. The Düsseldorf Local Division found the patent valid and infringed, dismissed the defendants' revocation counterclaim, and granted a pan-European injunction; notably, the court ordered defendants to publish the operative part of the judgment on their websites because they had used those websites to assert non-infringement.

Angenommene Argumente
Was das Gericht akzeptiert hat — nach Partei.

  • Defendants (Katun/General Plastic) infringe EP 3 686 683 B1 by supplying compatible toner cartridges

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 25 UPCA

    Hinweis: Court found infringement of Canon's developer supply container patent and granted an injunction plus publication of the decision on defendants' websites.

  • Defendants used their website to create impression of non-infringement, justifying mandatory website publication of decision

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 80 UPCA

    Hinweis: Court held that where a defendant has actively used its website to deny infringement, requiring it to publish the operative part of the judgment on that website is justified under Art. 80 UPCA.

Zurückgewiesene Argumente
Was das Gericht nicht akzeptiert hat — und warum.

  • Patent EP 3 686 683 B1 is invalid (counterclaim for revocation)

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 54, 56 EPC

    Begründung: Counterclaim for revocation dismissed in full.

  • Additional test-purchase evidence should be admitted as further pleading under R. 36 RoP

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: R. 36 RoP

    Begründung: Test purchase was conducted in October 2024 before the deadline for the reply to the statement of defence; claimant was obliged to act without delay and include the results in the reply rather than seeking a later further round.

Zentrale Rechtsgrundsätze
In der Begründung herangezogene Doktrinen und Regeln.
Where a defendant uses its website to deny infringement, mandatory publication of the judgment on the defendant's website is justified under Art. 80 UPCAR. 36 RoP further pleading admission requires timely explanation for why evidence could not have been filed earlierEPO preliminary opposition opinion may be submitted as publicly available information, but parties cannot expand their arguments around it without R. 36 permissionFeature breakdown of patent claims to be used at oral hearing to be communicated to parties in advance

Weitere Fälle zu diesem Grundsatz ansehen.

Hinweise zur Anspruchsauslegung

The court adopted a detailed feature breakdown of claim 1 of EP 3 686 683 B1 (developer supply container), dividing the claim into features 1.1-1.6.2 including the moving mechanism (feature 1.6) and its sub-features: upward movement of supporting portion while supporting the supported portion (1.6.1) to bring receiving opening into communication with discharge opening during mounting operation (1.6.2). Claims 5 and 6 were also broken down regarding guiding means and rib/holding portion.