UPC Analytics
DEEN
Übersicht · Eingereicht: 3. Juli 2024

UPC_CFI_386/2024

SYSTEM FOR SECURING SHELF ACCESSORIES TO A SHELF

VerletzungHauptverletzungsklageThe Hague LDInfringementCase Closed
ÜbersichtEntscheidungenBegründungZitateDokumenteZeitverlauf
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.