UPClytics
DEEN
AnmeldenTesten
Alle Fälle anzeigen

UPC CFI 386/2024

3. Juli 2024·EP2432351 · SYSTEM FOR SECURING SHELF ACCESSORIES TO A SHELF

Hauptaktenzeichen: ACT 39810/2024

Folgen
Verfahrensdetails
Status
Case Closed (Patent verletzt)
Verfahrensart
Verletzung
Kategorie
Hauptverletzungsklage
Parteien
Kläger
Vertreter
Beklagte
Vertreter
Division
The Hague LD
Richter
Technologie
  • Other fields
    Consumer products
Sprache
English
Erste Entscheidung
15. Aug. 2025
Letzte Entscheidung
10. Okt. 2025
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
The Hague LDGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Edger BrinkmanGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Mélanie BessaudGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Margot KokkeGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Koen CallewaertGesperrtGesperrt

Vor dem UPC: HL Display AB (6 Verfahren)·Black Sheep Retail Products B.V. (6 Verfahren)

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

Dieser Streit umfasst 5 weitere Verfahren

UPC CoA 897/2025·UPC CoA 895/2025·UPC CoA 896/2025·UPC CFI 610/2024·UPC APP 26908/2025

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

Weitere Verfahren: The Hague LD·2024

Entscheidungen
  • 2025-10-10
    Infringement ActionÖffentlich

    Zusammenfassung: The Hague Local Division found HL Display's European Patent EP 2 432 351 B1 (shelf divider system) valid and infringed (including indirect infringement) by Black Sheep Retail Products. The Court granted an injunction, ordered BSRP to cease infringing activities across all territories where the patent is in force. A counterclaim for declaration of non-infringement regarding a revised product was declared inadmissible. Long-arm jurisdiction was established for sales outside the Netherlands.

    Rechtsfragen anzeigen (6)
    • Patent infringement (shelf accessories/dividers)
    • Indirect infringement
    • Validity - added matter and inventive step
    • Counterclaim for declaration of non-infringement (admissibility, R. 61 RoP)
    • Long-arm jurisdiction
    • UPC-wide injunction
  • 2025-08-21
    Öffentlich

    Zusammenfassung: The Hague Local Division dismissed Black Sheep Retail Products B.V.'s application to submit two physical objects (its old product and a new product) as exhibits in support of its rejoinder in infringement proceedings brought by HL Display AB concerning EP 2 432 351. The court found no explanation had been provided for why the objects could not have been filed earlier, notably with the Statement of Defence.

    Rechtsfragen anzeigen (3)
    • Admission of late physical exhibits
    • Timeliness of evidence (R. 50 RoP)
    • Infringement action and counterclaim for revocation
  • 2025-08-15
    Infringement ActionÖffentlich

    Zusammenfassung: The Hague Local Division issued a procedural order under Rule 105.5 RoP following an interim conference, addressing scheduling, use of visual aids, and appointment of a technical judge for the oral hearing in an infringement action regarding EP 2 432 351.

    Rechtsfragen anzeigen (2)
    • Scheduling of oral hearing (R. 105.5 RoP)
    • Appointment of technical judge
Dokumente
Alle 202 Dokumente anzeigen
DokumenttitelDatumÖffentlich
Receipt2026-02-23Nicht öffentlich
Cover sheet2026-02-23Nicht öffentlich
Application document Claimant2026-02-23Nicht öffentlich
Receipt2026-01-12Nicht öffentlich
Cover sheet2026-01-12Nicht öffentlich
Application document Claimant2026-01-12Nicht öffentlich
Cover sheet2025-12-03Nicht öffentlich
Application document Defendant2025-12-03Nicht öffentlich
Other document Defendant2025-12-03Nicht öffentlich
Receipt2025-12-03Nicht öffentlich
Abdeckung: Teilweise.Begründung teilweise extrahiert — einige Abschnitte können unvollständig sein.
Zusammenfassung in einfacher Sprache

HL Display AB (Sweden) successfully sued Black Sheep Retail Products B.V. (Netherlands) for infringement of EP 2 432 351 B1, a patent for a shelf-divider securing system. The Hague Local Division found the patent valid (dismissing BSRP's revocation counterclaim on added matter and inventive step) and directly and indirectly infringed by BSRP Product 1, granting a pan-European injunction. BSRP's counterclaim for a declaration of non-infringement of a revised product was declared inadmissible for lack of a prior infringement assertion.

Angenommene Argumente
Was das Gericht akzeptiert hat — nach Partei.

  • Patent EP 2 432 351 B1 is valid over added matter and inventive step attacks

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 65 UPCA; Art. 54, 56 EPC

    Hinweis: Court upheld the patent's validity, rejecting challenges based on added matter and lack of inventive step raised in the counterclaim for revocation.

  • BSRP Product 1 directly infringes claim 1 of EP 2 432 351 B1

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 25 UPCA

    Hinweis: Court found all claim features present in BSRP Product 1 after claim construction.

  • Indirect infringement: BSRP supplies shelf accessories that are essential means relating to the invention

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 26 UPCA

    Hinweis: Court found indirect infringement in the supply of shelf accessory components for use in the infringing system.

  • Long-arm jurisdiction established for BSRP's sales outside the Netherlands

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 31 UPCA

    Hinweis: Court accepted long-arm jurisdiction enabling it to order cessation of infringing acts in all UPC territories where the patent is in force.

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

  • Counterclaim for declaration of non-infringement of revised product (new product 2) is admissible

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: R. 61.1 RoP

    Begründung: Admissibility of a declaration of non-infringement requires prior written assertion of infringement or a refusal to acknowledge non-infringement (R. 61.1 RoP); mere invocation of the patent against a different product is insufficient, and failure to respond within 30 days to the counterclaim itself does not trigger R. 61.1(b) RoP.

  • Patent lacks inventive step / contains added matter (counterclaim for revocation)

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 54, 56 EPC

    Begründung: Counterclaim for revocation was dismissed in full; the patent was found valid.

  • Application to deposit three further physical objects (BB40A-C) as late exhibits

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: R. 170 RoP

    Begründung: No explanation given for why the objects could not have been filed earlier (with the statement of defence); request refused by judge-rapporteur.

Zentrale Rechtsgrundsätze
In der Begründung herangezogene Doktrinen und Regeln.
Declaration of non-infringement requires prior assertion of infringement or rejection of a written acknowledgment request (R. 61.1 RoP)Counterclaim for declaration of non-infringement inadmissible where no prior assertion of infringement for the specific productR. 61.1(b) RoP does not apply merely because the patent holder fails to respond to the counterclaim within 30 daysIndirect infringement under Art. 26 UPCA extends to supply of essential means for putting the invention into effectLong-arm jurisdiction covers infringing activities in territories beyond the local division's member state

Weitere Fälle zu diesem Grundsatz ansehen.

Hinweise zur Anspruchsauslegung

The court construed the stop-face mechanism of claim 1 of EP 2 432 351 B1 (shelf securing system): 'first stop face' = forward-facing surface of the first arm; 'second stop face' = rearward-facing surface of the rear engagement member disposed in front of the front end of the third arm. Mutual overlapping in the vertical direction achieved by rotating the shelf accessory. BSRP Product 1 was found to embody all these structural features.