UPC CFI 390/2023
27. Okt. 2023·EP2867997 SEP · WIRELESS INDUCTIVE POWER TRANSFER
Hauptaktenzeichen: ACT 583273/2023
- Verfahrensdetails
- StatusCase Closed (Patent verletzt)VerfahrensartVerletzungKategorieHauptverletzungsklage
- Parteien
- Beklagte
- Belkin LimitedUnternehmen
- Belkin International, Inc.Unternehmen
- Belkin GmbHUnternehmen
- Name withheld (GDPR)
- Division
- Munich LD
- Technologie
- Electrical engineeringTelecommunications
- Sprache
- German
- Erste Entscheidung
- 13. Sept. 2024
| Verletzung festgestellt | Median Tage bis zur ersten Entscheidung | |
|---|---|---|
| Gesamt-UPC | 53% (62/117) | 124 |
| Munich LD | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Matthias Zigann | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Tobias Pichlmaier | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Edger Brinkman | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Anders Hansson | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
Vor dem UPC: Philips Group (46 Verfahren)·Belkin Group (24 Verfahren)
Dieser Streit umfasst 14 weitere Verfahren
UPC CoA 54/2026·UPC CFI 615/2025·UPC CFI 586/2025·UPC CFI 171/2025·UPC CFI 30/2025 und 9 weitere
4 weitere Beklagte zum selben oder einem verwandten Patent
UPC CFI 2719/2026·UPC CFI 915/2025·UPC CFI 1871/2025·UPC CFI 524/2025
Starten Sie die kostenlose Testphase, um die Ausgänge zu sehen.
- 2024-12-18
Zusammenfassung: Order imposing penalty payments of EUR 46,000 against Belkin companies for non-compliance with the court's disclosure order (accounting for infringement) in Philips v Belkin. The penalty ran at EUR 500/day for 26 days. Remaining requests by Philips were rejected. Philips bears 25% of costs; Belkin bears 75%.
Rechtsfragen anzeigen (3)
- Penalty payments for non-compliance (Article 82 UPCA, Rule 354 RoP)
- Disclosure/accounting order enforcement
- Electronic versus paper disclosure
- 2024-09-13Infringement ActionÖffentlich
Zusammenfassung: Munich Local Division found Belkin GmbH, Belkin International Inc., and Belkin Limited liable for infringement of Philips' EP 2 867 997 B1 (wireless power transfer technology) and dismissed the counterclaims for revocation. An injunction was granted against Belkin's infringing acts outside Germany (German acts excluded due to opt-out/national proceedings). Defendants were ordered to provide information, recall products, pay EUR 119,000 interim damages, and cover approximately 5/6 of costs. The revocation counterclaims were dismissed. (German territorial acts were carved out from the injunction as a separate matter.)
Rechtsfragen anzeigen (5)
- Patent infringement of wireless power transfer technology
- Revocation counterclaim dismissed
- Scope of injunction and territorial carve-out for Germany
- Liability of company directors as intermediaries under Art. 63(1) UPCA
- Patent infringer as manufacturer/seller under UPCA
| Dokumenttitel | Datum | Öffentlich |
|---|---|---|
| Anordnung | 2026-10-05 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Order | 2026-10-05 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Note | 2026-10-05 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Receipt | 2026-10-01 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Cover sheet | 2026-10-01 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Application document Defendant | 2026-10-01 | Nicht öffentlich |
| workflow geschlossen | 2025-07-22 | Öffentlich |
| workflow geschlossen | 2025-07-22 | Öffentlich |
| workflow geschlossen | 2025-07-22 | Öffentlich |
| workflow geschlossen | 2025-07-22 | Öffentlich |
Koninklijke Philips N.V. obtained a merits judgment against Belkin GmbH, Belkin International Inc., and Belkin Limited at the Munich Local Division for infringement of EP 2 867 997 B1 (wireless power transfer technology). The court upheld the patent against revocation counterclaims and granted an injunction, recall, information order, and EUR 119,000 interim damages for acts outside Germany (German acts excluded due to opt-out). Orders were also issued against Belkin's corporate officers as intermediaries under Art. 63(1)(2) UPCA. Late-filed prior art document D7 was excluded from the proceedings.
Protection sought from description and drawings can only be claim subject-matter if expressed in the claim
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 69 EPCHinweis: Munich LD confirmed that scope of protection is determined by claim language; broader description content does not expand the claim.
Where description presents multiple embodiments as belonging to the invention, claim terms must be understood broadly enough to encompass all embodiments
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 69 EPCHinweis: Court held that if multiple embodiments are presented as inventive, terms in the claim must be interpreted to cover all of them.
Infringer is the party who acts as manufacturer/offeror or who creates the impression for the relevant market that it manufactures/distributes goods in its own name and for its own account
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 25 UPCAHinweis: Court applied this test to identify liable Belkin entities as direct infringers.
Order against corporate officers (as intermediaries) available where company infringes
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 63(1)(2) UPCAHinweis: Court issued orders against Belkin GmbH's CEO and Belkin Limited's directors in their capacity as intermediaries.
D7 (new prior art) submitted with written submission of 15 March 2024 admitted to revocation proceedings
BeklagterBegründung: D7 and related submissions were not admitted into the proceedings.
Revocation counterclaims — patent invalid
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 138 EPCBegründung: Revocation counterclaims dismissed in their entirety.
Weitere Fälle zu diesem Grundsatz ansehen.
- D7 (unspecified late-filed document)Erfindungsmüh-Kombination
The Munich LD applied Art. 69 EPC claim construction: protection extends only to what is expressed in the claim; description and drawings inform but do not expand claim scope. Where the description presents multiple embodiments as inventive, claim terms are interpreted in the widest sense consistent with covering all such embodiments. The infringement finding covered Belkin's wireless power transfer products outside Germany (German acts carved out). Belkin's corporate officers were ordered as intermediaries.