UPC CFI 50/2024
7. Feb. 2024·EP3356109 · FOAM RESIN STRUCTURAL PART FOR A FRAME OF A VEHICLE AND PRODUCTION METHOD THEREFOR
Hauptaktenzeichen: ACT 6665/2024
- Verfahrensdetails
- StatusCase Closed (Patent verletzt)VerfahrensartVerletzungKategorieHauptverletzungsklage
- Parteien
- Kläger
- Name withheld (GDPR)
- Yellow Sphere Innovations GmbHUnternehmen
Vertreter- Dirk Jestaedt-Krieger Mes & Graf von der Groeben
- Rüdiger Balsmitwirkend-Bals & Vogel Patentanwälte PartG mbB
Beklagte- Knaus Tabbert AGUnternehmen
Vertreter- Rüdiger Pansch-rospatt Rechtsanwälte PartGmbB
- Simon Klopschinski-rospatt Rechtsanwälte PartGmbB
- Oliver Schneidermitwirkend-advotec.
- Eugen Tuscherermitwirkend-advotec.
- Division
- Dusseldorf LD
- Technologie
- Mechanical engineeringOther special machines
- Sprache
- German
- Erste Entscheidung
- 10. Apr. 2025
| Verletzung festgestellt | Median Tage bis zur ersten Entscheidung | |
|---|---|---|
| Gesamt-UPC | 53% (62/117) | 124 |
| Dusseldorf LD | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Ronny Thomas | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Edger Brinkman | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Berenice Thom | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Graham Ashley | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
Vor dem UPC: Yellow Sphere Innovations GmbH (9 Verfahren)·Knaus Tabbert AG (8 Verfahren)
Dieser Streit umfasst 7 weitere Verfahren
UPC CoA 157/2026·UPC CoA 413/2025·UPC CFI 411/2025·UPC CFI 368/2025·UPC CoA 365/2025 und 2 weitere
1 weitere Beklagte zum selben oder einem verwandten Patent
Starten Sie die kostenlose Testphase, um die Ausgänge zu sehen.
Weitere Verfahren: Dusseldorf LD·2024
- 2025-04-10Infringement ActionÖffentlich
Zusammenfassung: Final decision on the merits from the Düsseldorf Local Division (UPC_CFI_50/2024) delivered on 10 April 2025. The Court found that Knaus Tabbert AG infringed EP 3 356 109 B1 (product-by-process claims relating to a structural component) and granted an injunction, recall from distribution channels, definitive removal, and destruction of infringing products. The revocation counterclaim was dismissed. Provisional damages of EUR 100,000 were awarded, with further damages to be determined. The revocation counterclaim and third-party counterclaim were dismissed. Costs were apportioned 75% to Knaus Tabbert and 12.5% each to the claimants.
Rechtsfragen anzeigen (6)
- Product-by-process claims
- Infringement
- Revocation counterclaim dismissed
- Third-party counterclaim dismissed
- Compensation for pre-grant use (Art. 67 EPC)
- Damages
| Dokumenttitel | Datum | Öffentlich |
|---|---|---|
| Mitteilung | 2026-10-15 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Receipt | 2026-10-15 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Cover sheet | 2026-10-15 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Document Claimant | 2026-10-15 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Mitteilung | 2026-10-07 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Receipt | 2026-10-07 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Cover sheet | 2026-10-07 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Application document Claimant | 2026-10-07 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Receipt | 2026-09-22 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Cover sheet | 2026-09-22 | Nicht öffentlich |
Erwin Härtwich and Yellow Sphere Innovations GmbH sued Knaus Tabbert AG before the Düsseldorf Local Division for infringement of EP 3 356 109 B1, a product-by-process patent for a foam resin structural part used in vehicle frames. The court found infringement, granted an injunction, ordered recall and removal from distribution channels, destruction of infringing products, and awarded EUR 100,000 in preliminary damages, while dismissing both the revocation counterclaim and the third-party counterclaim. The court also held that UPC jurisdiction covers Art. 67 EPC compensation for use during the patent application's publication period.
Product-by-process claims cover products with the technical properties conferred by the specified manufacturing process, regardless of how the infringer manufactures the product
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 25 UPCA; German patent law on product-by-process claimsHinweis: The court held that the decisive question for product-by-process claims is how the skilled person understands the manufacturing process indications and what conclusions they draw for the technical properties of the resulting product; Knaus Tabbert's structural foam components were found to embody these properties.
UPC has jurisdiction over compensation for use of published EP application (Art. 67 EPC period)
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 32(1)(f) UPCA; Art. 24(1)(c) UPCA; Art. 67 EPCHinweis: The court held that compensation for use during the application publication period falls within UPC jurisdiction, applying Art. 67 EPC as national law on the basis of Art. 24(1)(c) UPCA since no unified rule exists. Claimants were required to plead the conditions for each individual member state.
Patent EP 3 356 109 is invalid (counterclaim for revocation)
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 65 UPCABegründung: The revocation counterclaim was dismissed; the patent was upheld.
Third-party counterclaim (Dritt-Widerklage) against Alexander Christ should succeed
BeklagterBegründung: The third-party counterclaim was dismissed.
Software-based deactivation of infringing function is an alternative to destruction
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 64 UPCABegründung: The court ordered destruction rather than software-based deactivation, finding that deactivation could only be accepted if it were certain that the product could not be re-enabled into an infringing state.
Weitere Fälle zu diesem Grundsatz ansehen.
For product-by-process claims, the court applied a construction focused on what technical properties the claimed manufacturing process confers on the resulting product. The skilled person's understanding of the manufacturing process description and the resulting structural/material properties of the foam resin structural part is the decisive interpretive question, not the specific process steps as such.