UPClytics
DEEN
AnmeldenTesten
Alle Fälle anzeigen

UPC CFI 414/2025

EP3296274 · FINING OF BOROALUMINO SILICATE GLASSES

Folgen
Verfahrensdetails
Status
Patent verletzt
Verfahrensart
Verletzung
Kategorie
Hauptverletzungsklage
Parteien
Kläger
Vertreter
Division
Mannheim LD
Richter
Technologie
  • Chemistry
    Materials, metallurgy
  • Mechanical engineering
    Other special machines
Sprache
—
Erste Entscheidung
3. Okt. 2025
Letzte Entscheidung
16. Apr. 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
Mannheim LDGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Peter TochtermannGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Tobias SenderGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Petri RinkinenGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Rudi GoedeweeckGesperrtGesperrt

Vor dem UPC: Corning Incorporated (19 Verfahren)·TCL Group (35 Verfahren)

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

Dieser Streit umfasst 8 weitere Verfahren

UPC CFI 1766/2026·UPC CFI 1727/2026·UPC CoA 424/2025·UPC CFI 819/2024·UPC APP 17158/2025 und 3 weitere

6 weitere Beklagte zum selben oder einem verwandten Patent

UPC CoA 38/2026·UPC CFI 866/2025·UPC CFI 416/2025·UPC CFI 337/2025·UPC CFI 775/2026 und 1 weitere

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

Weitere Verfahren: Mannheim LD·2025

Entscheidungen
  • 2026-04-16
    Counterclaim for revocationÖffentlich

    Zusammenfassung: The infringement action against Defendants 1-3 (TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, TCL Deutschland Verwaltungs GmbH, and TCL Operations Polska) was predominantly successful: they were found to directly infringe claim 1 of EP 3 296 274 and are subject to injunction, recall, removal, destruction, and information obligations. The infringement action against Defendant 4 (TCL Belgium, SA) was dismissed for lack of demonstrated operational control over the infringing subsidiary. The counterclaim for revocation was dismissed in its entirety, with the patent maintained as granted.

    Rechtsfragen anzeigen (12)
    • Direct infringement of claim 1 (method for producing alkali-free glass sheets by downdraw process) and claim 3 (dependent SnO2 concentration)
    • Counterclaim for revocation: added matter (Art. 138(1)(c) EPC / Art. 123(2) EPC)
    • Counterclaim for revocation: sufficiency of disclosure (Art. 138(1)(b) EPC)
    • Counterclaim for revocation: novelty over WO 2006/115997 A2 and WO 02/098810 A1 (Art. 138(1)(a) EPC / Art. 54 EPC)
    • Counterclaim for revocation: inventive step starting from US 2002/0082158 A1, JP 2004-189535A, JP 2001-348247A (Art. 138(1)(a) EPC / Art. 56 EPC)
    • Liability of parent holding company (Defendant 4) for infringing acts of subsidiary (Defendant 3)
    • Patent exhaustion in relation to glass sheets supplied by Corning or its licensees
    • Proportionality of permanent injunction (Art. 63(1) UPCA, Art. 42 UPCA)
    • Scope of infringement action: restriction to specific TV models or suppliers
    • Admissibility of interim award on costs (Art. 69(1) UPCA, R. 150(2) RoP)
    • Publication of decision (Art. 80 UPCA)
    • Enforcement security (Art. 82(2) UPCA)
Dokumente
  • 2026-04-16%20-%20Final%20Decision_redacted_signed_TS_RG%2BPR%20%284%29.pdf2026-04-16EN
Angenommene Argumente
Was das Gericht akzeptiert hat — nach Partei.

  • Chemical analyses (XRF and ICP) of TCL 32L5A TVs purchased for the German market confirmed that glass sheets in tested LCD-panels have a composition falling within claim 1 of the patent-in-suit, establishing infringement by Defendants 1-3.

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 25(a) UPCA; claim 1 of EP 3 296 274

  • Risk of further infringement is presumed from established past infringement and is not rebutted absent a cease-and-desist declaration with contractual penalty clause.

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 63(1) UPCA; CoA UPC_CoA_789/2025 (Dyson v Dreame)

  • The subject-matter of claim 1 does not extend beyond the content of the original/earlier application as filed; added matter ground rejected.

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 138(1)(c) EPC; Art. 123(2) EPC

  • Patent is disclosed sufficiently clearly and completely; sufficiency ground rejected.

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 138(1)(b) EPC; Art. 83 EPC

  • Claim 1 is novel over WO'997 and WO'810 and involves inventive step over US'158, JP'535 and JP'247; all invalidity attacks dismissed.

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 138(1)(a) EPC; Art. 54, 56 EPC

  • Injunction is not disproportionate given Defendants can source glass sheets from licensed suppliers and patent only has a short remaining term.

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 63(1) UPCA; Art. 42 UPCA; Art. 3(2) Enforcement Directive
Zurückgewiesene Argumente
Was das Gericht nicht akzeptiert hat — und warum.

  • TCL Belgium (Defendant 4) exercised operational control over TCL Operations Polska (Defendant 3) and is therefore liable for Defendant 3's infringement.

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 25(a) UPCA

  • Chemical analyses of US market samples (EDS) were sufficient to establish infringement in Germany and that US and European models are identical.

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 25(a) UPCA

  • All current LCD-TVs produced by Defendants for the German market do not infringe the patent-in-suit, rebutting risk of repetition.

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 63(1) UPCA

  • Injunction should be restricted to specific TV models or LCD-panel suppliers.

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 62(1) UPCA; Art. 25(a) UPCA

  • Permanent injunction is disproportionate (reference to public interest and supply chain concerns).

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 63(1) UPCA; Art. 42 UPCA

  • Enforcement of the decision should be made dependent on provision of a security of at least EUR 5,000,000.

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 82(2) UPCA; R. 352.1, 354.1 RoP

  • Interim award of damages/costs of EUR 150,000 should be granted.

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 68 UPCA; R. 119 RoP

  • Publication of the decision in public media should be permitted at Defendants' expense.

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 80 UPCA