UPClytics
Alle Fälle anzeigen

UPC CFI 595/2024

14. Okt. 2024·EP3686683 Einheitspatent · DEVELOPER REPLENISHING CONTAINER AND DEVELOPER REPLENISHING SYSTEM

Verfahrensdetails
Status
Case Closed (Patent wie erteilt aufrechterhalten)
Verfahrensart
Widerklage auf Nichtigkeit
Kategorie
Widerklage auf Nichtigkeit
Parteien
Kläger
Vertreter
Beklagte
Vertreter
Division
Dusseldorf LD
Technologie
  • Instruments
    Optics
Sprache
English
Erste Entscheidung
20. Nov. 2025
Letzte Entscheidung
30. Apr. 2026
EPA-Einspruch
  • Katun Germany GmbHZulässig2024-12-13
  • Katun (E.D.C.) B.V.Zulässig2024-12-13
  • Katun CorporationZulässig2024-12-13
  • General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd.Zulässig2024-12-13
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.
Patent nichtigMedian Tage bis zur ersten Entscheidung
Gesamt-UPC37% (34/91)124
Dusseldorf LDGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Ronny ThomasGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Jule SchumacherGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Marije KnijffGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Stefanie PhilippsGesperrtGesperrt

Vor dem UPC: Katun (E.D.C.) B.V. (2 Verfahren)·Canon Kabushiki Kaisha (2 Verfahren)

Entscheidungen
  • 2026-04-30
    Counterclaim for revocationÖffentlich

    Zusammenfassung: The Düsseldorf Local Division dismissed the Defendants' application for a confidentiality order under R. 262A RoP, filed on 18 February 2026. The Court held the application inadmissible because the Defendants could reasonably have foreseen the need for confidentiality protection during the main proceedings and should have raised it there. Additionally, the Court held that restricting how information may be used (not just who may access it) is a matter of substantive law that cannot be addressed in enforcement proceedings.

    Rechtsfragen anzeigen (5)
    • Admissibility of R. 262A RoP confidentiality application filed after main proceedings
    • Applicability of R. 262A RoP to information disclosed pursuant to a court order (Art. 67 UPCA / R. 191 RoP)
    • Timing requirement: confidentiality requests must be raised during proceedings on the merits if reasonably foreseeable
    • Restriction on use of disclosed information as a matter of substantive law not addressable in enforcement proceedings
    • Scope of confidentiality protection for information disclosed under information order
  • 2026-02-11
    Infringement ActionÖffentlich

    Zusammenfassung: The Düsseldorf Local Division found Canon's developer supply container patent EP 3 686 683 infringed by Katun and General Plastic entities, granting an injunction and ordering defendants to publish the operative part of the decision on their websites; the counterclaim for revocation was dismissed.

    Rechtsfragen anzeigen (3)
    • Patent infringement (developer supply container)
    • Counterclaim for revocation dismissed
    • Publication of decision on defendant's website (Art. 80 UPCA)
  • 2025-12-29
    Infringement ActionÖffentlich

    Zusammenfassung: The Düsseldorf Local Division addressed Canon's request for simultaneous interpretation from English into Japanese during the oral hearing, for corporate representatives joining remotely from Japan.

    Rechtsfragen anzeigen (2)
    • Request for simultaneous interpretation (R. 109 RoP)
    • Remote participation by Japanese corporate representatives
  • 2025-12-10

    Zusammenfassung: The Düsseldorf Local Division issued a post-interim-conference order in the Canon v. Katun proceedings, setting the feature breakdown of claim 1 of EP 3 686 683 to be used at the oral hearing.

    Rechtsfragen anzeigen (2)
    • Post-interim-conference order (R. 105.5 RoP)
    • Feature breakdown of patent claim
  • 2025-11-20

    Zusammenfassung: The Düsseldorf Local Division granted Canon's application for a further round of written pleadings under R. 36 RoP against Katun, to address the EPO Opposition Division's preliminary opinion and additional test purchases of allegedly infringing toner cartridge products.

    Rechtsfragen anzeigen (3)
    • R. 36 RoP further pleadings based on new evidence
    • EPO preliminary opinion
    • Additional test purchases - new model numbers
DokumenttitelDatumÖffentlich
Receipt2026-03-11Nicht öffentlich
Cover sheet2026-03-11Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit Respondent2026-03-11Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit Respondent2026-03-11Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit Respondent2026-03-11Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit Respondent2026-03-11Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit Respondent2026-03-11Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit Respondent2026-03-11Nicht öffentlich
Application Respondent2026-03-11Nicht öffentlich
Application Respondent2026-03-11Nicht öffentlich
Angenommene Argumente
Was das Gericht akzeptiert hat — nach Partei.
  • R. 262A RoP applies at least mutatis mutandis to information that must be disclosed pursuant to a court order under Art. 67 UPCA and R. 191 RoP

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: R. 262A.1 RoP; R. 190.1 RoP; R. 191 RoP; Art. 67 UPCA; UPC_CoA_930/2025 (EOFlow v. Insulet)
Zurückgewiesene Argumente
Was das Gericht nicht akzeptiert hat — und warum.
  • The application for a confidentiality order under R. 262A RoP should be granted because the information to be disclosed is commercially sensitive and the Claimant competes indirectly with Defendants

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: R. 262A RoP; Art. 58 UPCA; Art. 2(1) Directive (EU) 2016/943
  • R. 262A RoP does not apply at all to information disclosed pursuant to a court order, as its wording is confined to pleadings and evidence collection

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: R. 262A.1 RoP
  • The application should be dismissed as inadmissible because it was filed late and after the main proceedings were closed

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: R. 262A RoP; R. 191 RoP; R. 190.1 RoP