UPC_CFI_351/2024

DEVELOPER REPLENISHING CONTAINER AND DEVELOPER REPLENISHING SYSTEM

VerletzungHauptverletzungsklageDusseldorf LDInfringementCase Closed

Übersicht Entscheidungen Begründung Zitate Dokumente Zeitverlauf

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 UPCA R. 36 RoP further pleading admission requires timely explanation for why evidence could not have been filed earlier EPO preliminary opposition opinion may be submitted as publicly available information, but parties cannot expand their arguments around it without R. 36 permission Feature 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.