UPClytics
DEEN
AnmeldenTesten
Alle Fälle anzeigen

UPC CFI 388/2025

30. Apr. 2025·EP4117857 Einheitspatent · ROLLER SANDER

Folgen
Verfahrensdetails
Status
Case Closed (Patent verletzt)
Verfahrensart
Verletzung
Kategorie
Hauptverletzungsklage
Parteien
Division
Hamburg LD
Richter
Technologie
  • Mechanical engineering
    Machine tools
Sprache
German
Erste Entscheidung
6. Mai 2026
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
Hamburg LDGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Sabine KlepschGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Stefan SchillingGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Peter AgergaardGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Max TilmannGesperrtGesperrt

Vor dem UPC: HORL 1993 GmbH (1 Verfahren)·Magna-Tec e.K. (1 Verfahren)

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

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

Weitere Verfahren: Hamburg LD·2025

Entscheidungen
  • 2026-05-06
    Infringement ActionÖffentlich

    Zusammenfassung: The Local Division Hamburg found that Magna-Tec e.K. directly infringed claims 1 and 14 of EP 4 117 857 B1 with its "Trinity-S" knife-sharpening device. The court granted an injunction (limited to UPC contracting member states), ordered recall from commercial customers, destruction, disclosure/accounting, and publication of the judgment in the MESSER MAGAZIN; claims relating to non-UPCA countries (Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Spain, Ireland, Norway, Turkey, UK) were dismissed for lack of factual pleading. Preliminary damages of EUR 3,000 were awarded (reduced from the EUR 41,000 claimed) and the defendant was ordered to pay two-thirds of the costs.

    Rechtsfragen anzeigen (10)
    • Direct infringement of claims 1 and 14 (rolling grinder device)
    • Claim construction: whether 'Laufrolle' in claim 1 refers only to the roller kinematically associated with the disc or any roller
    • Whether the accused Trinity-S product has a disc rotating at a different angular velocity than the running roller
    • Jurisdiction and pleading requirements for infringement in non-UPCA countries (Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Spain, Ireland, Norway, Turkey, UK)
    • Scope of recall order (commercial vs. all customers)
    • Right to publication of judgment (Art. 80 UPCA)
    • Proportionality of recall and destruction orders for a system comprising both an infringing device and a non-infringing blade-fixation accessory
    • Preliminary damages quantum under Rule 119 RoP
    • Whether a grace month (Karenzmonat) applies under UPC procedural law
    • Admissibility of new submissions after oral hearing under Rule 9 / Rule 333 RoP
Dokumente
Alle 152 Dokumente anzeigen
DokumenttitelDatumÖffentlich
Other Documents2026-09-08Nicht öffentlich
Note2026-09-08Nicht öffentlich
Receipt2026-08-17Nicht öffentlich
Cover sheet2026-08-17Nicht öffentlich
Document Defendant2026-08-17Nicht öffentlich
Anordnung2026-06-15Nicht öffentlich
Order2026-06-15Nicht öffentlich
Receipt2026-06-09Nicht öffentlich
Cover sheet2026-06-09Nicht öffentlich
Document Claimant2026-06-09Nicht öffentlich
Angenommene Argumente
Was das Gericht akzeptiert hat — nach Partei.

  • The claim term 'die Laufrolle' does not require a specific kinematic coupling to the disc; any roller of the device satisfying the remaining claim features suffices, so the accused Trinity-S (which has a small roller and a large disc rotating at different angular velocities) meets feature 4 of claim 1.

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 69 EPC; Protocol on Interpretation of Art. 69 EPC

  • The accused product also infringes system claim 14 because the defendant's only non-infringement argument for claim 14 depended on the (rejected) non-infringement argument for claim 1.

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 25(a) UPCA

  • The claimant has a legitimate interest in publication of the judgment because the defendant compared and negatively described the claimant's product on its website and positively promoted the infringing product in the MESSER MAGAZIN.

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 80 UPCA

  • Claims relating to non-UPCA countries (Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Spain, Ireland, Norway, Turkey, UK) must be dismissed because the claimant failed to plead sufficient concrete facts to enable the court to assess infringement under the national law of each country.

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: lex loci protectionis; Art. 34 UPCA
Zurückgewiesene Argumente
Was das Gericht nicht akzeptiert hat — und warum.

  • The disc must rotate at a different angular velocity from the roller that is kinematically associated with it (i.e., the roller directly coupled to the disc); because the disc and its associated roller 22 are rigidly connected, there is no difference in angular velocity between them.

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 69 EPC

  • The disclosure request should only be made to the claimant's lawyers, not to the claimant directly, on grounds of confidentiality.

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 67 UPCA; R. 191 RoP

  • Recall and destruction of the entire system (device + blade-fixation accessory) is disproportionate because the accessory can be used without infringing the patent.

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 64(4) UPCA

  • The preliminary damages award should be subject to the claimant providing security of 120% of the amount to be enforced.

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: R. 119 RoP; R. 352.1 RoP

  • A grace month (Karenzmonat) must be granted before compliance periods for recall, destruction, and disclosure begin to run.

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: German national patent law analogy

  • The defendant should be allowed to submit a further brief responding to allegedly new evidence (Annex GRU 10 video) shown at the oral hearing.

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: R. 9 RoP; R. 333 RoP