- Verfahrensdetails
- StatusCase Closed (Patent verletzt)VerfahrensartVerletzungKategorieHauptverletzungsklage
- Parteien
- Kläger
- Franz Kaldewei GmbH & Co. KGUnternehmen
Vertreter- Cordula Julia Schumacher-Arnold Ruess
- Benjamin Schnäbelin-Arnold Ruess
Beklagte- Bette GmbH & Co. KGUnternehmen
Vertreter- Jens Michael Künzel-Krieger Mes & Graf von der Groeben
- Division
- Dusseldorf LD
- Technologie
- Other fieldsConsumer products
- Sprache
- German
- Erste Entscheidung
- 1. Dez. 2023
- Letzte Entscheidung
- 3. Juli 2024
| Verletzung festgestellt | Median Tage bis zur ersten Entscheidung | |
|---|---|---|
| Gesamt-UPC | 53% (62/117) | 124 |
| Dusseldorf LD | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Berenice Thom | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter András Kupecz | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Bernard Ledeboer | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
Vor dem UPC: Franz Kaldewei GmbH & Co. KG (4 Verfahren)·Bette GmbH & Co. KG (4 Verfahren)
Dieser Streit umfasst 3 weitere Verfahren
Starten Sie die kostenlose Testphase, um die Ausgänge zu sehen.
Weitere Verfahren: Dusseldorf LD·2023
- 2024-07-03Infringement ActionÖffentlich
Zusammenfassung: Decision of the Düsseldorf Local Division finding infringement of EP 3 375 337 B1 by Bette GmbH & Co. KG in an action by Franz Kaldewei GmbH & Co. KG concerning bathroom basin technology. The defendant was ordered to cease and desist, recall and remove products from distribution channels, and pay EUR 10,000 as a provisional award of damages with a declaration of further damages liability. The revocation counterclaim was partially successful (50% costs for revocation). Key holdings address prior use rights under Art. 28 UPCA (must be proven country by country), the scope of the information right under Art. 68 UPCA, and the concept of permanent removal from distribution channels as distinct from recall.
Rechtsfragen anzeigen (5)
- Patent infringement Art. 25 UPCA
- Prior use rights Art. 28 UPCA (national basis required)
- Information right Art. 68 UPCA
- Recall and permanent removal from distribution channels
- Partial validity challenge (revocation counterclaim)
- 2023-12-01Infringement ActionÖffentlich
Zusammenfassung: The Düsseldorf Local Division decided under Rule 37.2 RoP to proceed with infringement and validity issues together (Article 33(3)(a) UPCA) in the patent dispute between Franz Kaldewei GmbH & Co. KG and Bette GmbH & Co. KG concerning EP 3 375 337 B1.
Rechtsfragen anzeigen (3)
- Bifurcation (Art. 33(3) UPCA)
- Joint hearing of infringement and validity
- Rule 37.2 RoP
| Dokumenttitel | Datum | Öffentlich |
|---|---|---|
| Case Closure Formal Check | 2025-09-12 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Case Closure Formal Check | 2025-03-27 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Outcome of the Order | 2024-09-06 | Nicht öffentlich |
| 2024-06-09 Order Workflow geschlossen | 2024-09-06 | Öffentlich |
| Receipt | 2024-08-23 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Anlage KM-A 1 | 2024-08-23 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Eingabe zum Nachweis der Maßnahme gemäß B. II. 3. der Entscheidung | 2024-08-23 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Anlage KM-A 2 | 2024-08-23 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Template-Order | 2024-07-17 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Receipt | 2024-07-17 | Nicht öffentlich |
Franz Kaldewei GmbH & Co. KG sued Bette GmbH & Co. KG before the Düsseldorf Local Division for infringement of EP 3 375 337 B1 (bathroom basin technology patent). The court found direct infringement, ordered injunction, recall and removal from distribution channels, and EUR 10,000 provisional damages. Key holdings established that the prior use right under Art. 28 UPCA must be pleaded and proven country-by-country under the national law of each member state, and that the right to book inspection is limited to damages proceedings and not available in infringement proceedings; the revocation counterclaim was partially successful (costs split 50/50).
Direct infringement of EP 3 375 337 B1 (bathroom basin technology) by Bette GmbH & Co. KG in the relevant UPC member states
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 25(a) UPCAHinweis: Düsseldorf Local Division found direct infringement; injunction, recall, removal from distribution channels, and EUR 10,000 provisional damages awarded.
Prior use right under Art. 28 UPCA must be established separately for each UPCA member state based on the national law of that state
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 28 UPCAHinweis: Court accepted that the prior use right is country-by-country and Bette failed to adequately plead it for each protected state.
The right to information under Art. 68 UPCA in combination with R. 191 RoP includes the right to request information about cost factors relied upon by defendant in calculating profits, as well as supporting documents (invoices or delivery notes)
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 68(3)(a)(b) UPCA; R. 191 RoPPermanent removal from distribution channels is a distinct and separate measure from recall
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 68 UPCA; R. 191 RoPHinweis: Court confirmed these are separate, flanking measures; removal is conditional on the infringer having the actual and legal means to effect it.
Prior use right defense under Art. 28 UPCA
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 28 UPCABegründung: Defendant failed to adequately plead the prior use right country-by-country as required; the right under Art. 28 UPCA is governed by the national law of each protected member state and must be established separately for each.
Right to inspection of books (Offenlegung der Bücher) in the infringement proceedings
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 68 UPCA; R. 131.1(c); R. 141 RoPBegründung: Court held that inspection of books under Art. 68 UPCA / R. 131.1(c) / R. 141 RoP is part of the damages quantification procedure and cannot be ordered in the main infringement proceedings; it is only applicable after a damages declaration.
Retrospective extension of time limit for procedural submissions
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: UPC Rules of ProcedureBegründung: Request for retrospective time extension must be made no later than at the same time as the submission for which it is sought; a subsequent retrospective request has no prospect of success.
Weitere Fälle zu diesem Grundsatz ansehen.