UPC_CFI_716/2024

Premixed burner

VerletzungHauptverletzungsklageMannheim LDInfringementCase Closed

Übersicht Entscheidungen Begründung Zitate Dokumente Zeitverlauf

Abdeckung: Teilweise.Begründung teilweise extrahiert — einige Abschnitte können unvollständig sein.

Zusammenfassung in einfacher Sprache

Polidoro S.p.a. sued Bekaert Combustion Technology B.V. and NV Bekaert SA for infringement of EP 2 037 175 B2 (a premixed burner patent, upheld in limited form after EPO opposition). The Mannheim Local Division found direct infringement of claim 1 and granted a full injunction, recall, information and interim-damages order across seven UPCA states, while dismissing the defendants' revocation counterclaim; defendants bear 75% of costs.

Angenommene Argumente

Was das Gericht akzeptiert hat — nach Partei.

Bekaert Combustion Technology B.V. directly infringes claim 1 of EP 2 037 175 B2 (premixed burner)
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 25 UPCA; direct infringement
Hinweis: Mannheim Local Division found all features of claim 1 realised in the Bekaert accused product, granting injunction across Austria, Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, Netherlands and Portugal.
NV Bekaert SA is jointly liable for infringement by its subsidiary Bekaert Combustion Technology B.V.
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 25 UPCA
Hinweis: Parent company found co-liable for acts of offering, placing on the market, importing and storing infringing products.
Patent survived opposition/appeal at EPO and should be given full weight as upheld in limited B2 form
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Opposition proceedings before EPO Board of Appeal
Hinweis: The Board of Appeal upheld the patent in limited form, and the opposition decision was published on 27 November 2024; defendants' counterclaim for revocation was dismissed.

Zurückgewiesene Argumente

Was das Gericht nicht akzeptiert hat — und warum.

Counterclaim for revocation: patent lacks validity
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 65 UPCA
Begründung: Counterclaim for revocation was dismissed; no further detail visible in the excerpt.
Alleged disproportionate harm from injunction (late-filed claim about magnitude of damage)
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Proportionality; late-filing rule
Begründung: The statement made for the first time at oral hearing was belated and therefore disregarded; in any event, the orders related only to one of two attacked embodiments, reducing the alleged damage accordingly.

Zentrale Rechtsgrundsätze

In der Begründung herangezogene Doktrinen und Regeln.

Direct infringement of all features of granted/amended claim 1 suffices for injunctive relief Late-filed arguments/evidence at oral hearing may be disregarded Patent upheld in opposition (B2 form) carries persuasive weight in infringement proceedings Injunction conditions include notification and certified translation requirements before enforcement

Weitere Fälle zu diesem Grundsatz ansehen.

Hinweise zur Anspruchsauslegung

Claim 1 (B2 form after opposition) was central: it covers a premixed burner with a tubular body, at least one disk with through-holes constituting the distribution head, a plate closing the opposite end, and the disk made integrally with a flange — specifically characterised by the absence of an inner distributor. The court found the Bekaert product met all these features.