UPC CFI 459/2023
1. Dez. 2023·EP2011218 · BOOST POWER FACTOR CORRECTION CIRCUIT (BOOST PFC)
Hauptaktenzeichen: ACT 590302/2023
- Verfahrensdetails
- StatusCase Closed (Keine Verletzung)VerfahrensartVerletzungKategorieHauptverletzungsklage
- Parteien
- Kläger
- Tridonic GmbH & Co KGUnternehmen
Vertreter- Clemens Tobias Steins-Hoffmann Eitle
- Markus B. Bölling-Mitscherlich Patent- und Rechtsanwälte
- Christian Kraeh-Mitscherlich Patent- und Rechtsanwälte
- Markus G. Müller-Hoffmann Eitle
Beklagte- CUPOWER Shenzhen Xiezhen Electronics Co., LtdUnternehmen
- CUPOWER Europe GmbHUnternehmen
Vertreter- Jan-Caspar Maiers-Wildanger Kehrwald Graf von Schwerin & Partner mbB
- Eva Geschke-Wildanger Kehrwald Graf von Schwerin & Partner mbB
- Renate Weissemitwirkend-Patentanwaltskanzlei Weisse
- Division
- Dusseldorf LD
- Technologie
- Electrical engineeringElectrical machinery, apparatus, energy
- Sprache
- German
- Erste Entscheidung
- 7. März 2025
| Verletzung festgestellt | Median Tage bis zur ersten Entscheidung | |
|---|---|---|
| Gesamt-UPC | 53% (62/117) | 124 |
| Dusseldorf LD | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Berenice Thom | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Peter Agergaard | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Christoph Schober | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Sabine Klepsch | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
Vor dem UPC: Tridonic GmbH & Co KG (4 Verfahren)·CUPOWER Shenzhen Xiezhen Electronics Co., Ltd (3 Verfahren)
Dieser Streit umfasst 2 weitere Verfahren
1 weitere Beklagte zum selben oder einem verwandten Patent
Starten Sie die kostenlose Testphase, um die Ausgänge zu sehen.
Weitere Verfahren: Dusseldorf LD·2023
- 2025-08-22
Zusammenfassung: Düsseldorf Local Division suspended the file access proceedings under R.262.1(b) RoP concerning the Tridonic/CUPOWER infringement case, pending ongoing settlement negotiations in the parallel main proceedings, with consent of all parties.
Rechtsfragen anzeigen (1)
- Suspension of file access proceedings pending settlement negotiations (R.295(d) / R.296.2 RoP)
- 2025-03-07Infringement ActionÖffentlich
Zusammenfassung: Düsseldorf Local Division full merits judgment in an infringement action by Tridonic GmbH & Co KG against CUPOWER entities concerning EP 2 011 218 B1 (a patent relating to LED driver/control circuits). The court dismissed the infringement action in its entirety, finding that the accused LED power supply products do not fulfil feature 7.4 of the patent (decoupling element) because the capacitor C3 in the defendants' design does not achieve the complete electrical separation required by the claim – it remains continuously connected to the control unit regardless of switch state. The defendants' counterclaim for revocation was also dismissed (patent maintained). Costs were split: claimant bears costs of the infringement action; defendants bear costs of the revocation counterclaim equally.
Rechtsfragen anzeigen (5)
- Non-infringement of apparatus claim (feature 7.4 – decoupling element)
- Claim construction – meaning of 'Entkoppelung' (complete electrical separation)
- Late submissions during oral hearing
- Joint handling of infringement and revocation counterclaim
- Cost allocation between infringement action and counterclaim
- 2024-06-21
Zusammenfassung: Düsseldorf Local Division early procedural order (R. 37.2 RoP) in Tridonic GmbH & Co KG's infringement action against CUPOWER entities concerning EP 2 011 218 B1 (same case as the later final decision). The court decided to handle both the infringement action and the revocation counterclaim jointly (Art. 33(3)(a) UPCA) before the close of the written proceedings, for reasons of procedural economy and to allow early assignment of a technically qualified judge.
Rechtsfragen anzeigen (2)
- Joint handling of infringement and revocation counterclaim (Art. 33(3)(a) UPCA / R. 37.2 RoP)
- Early procedural order
| Dokumenttitel | Datum | Öffentlich |
|---|---|---|
| Acknowledgement-of-change-of-a-representative | 2025-08-13 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Application-RoP293-Receipt | 2025-08-13 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Formal-checks_Notification-of-positive-outcome | 2025-08-13 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Application-RoP293 | 2025-08-06 | Nicht öffentlich |
| HE01 | 2025-08-06 | Nicht öffentlich |
| 250806_Antrag_Vertreterwechsel_33805_sig | 2025-08-06 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Headnote-and-Keywords | 2025-04-09 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Outcome of the Order | 2025-04-09 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Teilweise Berichtigung | 2025-04-09 | Öffentlich |
| 20250401_Tridonic-Cupower_StN_Entscheidungsberichtigung | 2025-04-01 | Nicht öffentlich |
Tridonic GmbH & Co KG sued CUPOWER entities in the Düsseldorf Local Division for infringement of EP 2 011 218 B1, a Boost Power Factor Correction Circuit patent for LED drivers. The court dismissed the infringement action after finding that the accused products' capacitor C3 did not achieve the 'complete electrical separation' required by feature 7.4 (decoupling element), while simultaneously dismissing the defendants' revocation counterclaim. Costs of the infringement action were awarded to defendants; costs of the revocation counterclaim were awarded to claimant.
Accused products do not fulfil feature 7.4 (decoupling element) of EP 2 011 218
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 69 EPC (claim construction); Art. 25 UPCAHinweis: The Düsseldorf Local Division held that the capacitor C3 in defendants' LED power supply design does not achieve the complete electrical separation required by the patent's 'decoupling element'; it remains continuously connected to the control unit regardless of switch state, so only one signal at one pin of the control unit is not achieved as required.
New invalidity attacks raised for the first time at oral hearing are inadmissible due to front-loaded UPC procedure
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Preamble 7 RoP; R. 55 RoPHinweis: The court refused to consider new invalidity attacks raised strategically at oral hearing for surprise effect, finding this incompatible with the UPC's procedure against strategic surprise tactics.
Defendants' LED power supply products infringe EP 2 011 218 B1
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 69 EPC; Art. 25 UPCABegründung: The court found that the accused products do not realise feature 7.4 of the patent — the decoupling element — because capacitor C3 does not achieve complete electrical separation between the switch signal and the control unit; both measurement circuits remain continuously connected to the control unit pin, so the patent's requirement of only one current signal arriving at one pin is not met.
Patent EP 2 011 218 is invalid (counterclaim for revocation)
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 65 UPCABegründung: The revocation counterclaim was dismissed; the patent was maintained as valid.
The court construed 'decoupling element' in feature 7.4 of EP 2 011 218 as requiring complete electrical separation, such that only one current signal at a time arrives at one pin of the control unit. The accused design's capacitor C3 does not achieve this because it responds to any voltage change across the switch — whether open or closed — and thereby applies a voltage level through the signal path in both states, meaning both measurement circuits remain continuously connected to the control unit pin simultaneously.