UPClytics
DEEN
AnmeldenTesten
Alle Fälle anzeigen

UPC CFI 727/2024

3. Dez. 2024·EP2363263 · Centring device for a forming tool

Folgen
Verfahrensdetails
Status
Case Closed (Keine Verletzung)
Verfahrensart
Verletzung
Kategorie
Hauptverletzungsklage
Parteien
Kläger
Vertreter
Division
Milan LD
Richter
Technologie
  • Mechanical engineering
    Other special machines · Mechanical elements
  • Chemistry
    Materials, metallurgy
Sprache
English
Erste Entscheidung
28. Jan. 2026
Letzte Entscheidung
5. Mai 2026
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.
Verletzung festgestelltMedian Tage bis zur ersten Entscheidung
Gesamt-UPC53% (62/117)124
Milan LDGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Pierluigi PerrottiGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Anna-Lena KleinGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Alima ZanaGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Frédéric GaillardeGesperrtGesperrt

Vor dem UPC: Agathon AG (2 Verfahren)·Intercom s.r.l. (2 Verfahren)

14 Tage kostenlos testenBereits Nutzer? Anmelden
Verwandte Verfahren
Alle Verfahren zu diesem Patent

Dieser Streit umfasst 1 weitere Verfahren

UPC CFI 493/2025

Starten Sie die kostenlose Testphase, um die Ausgänge zu sehen.

Weitere Verfahren: Milan LD·2024

Entscheidungen
  • 2026-05-05
    Infringement ActionÖffentlich

    Zusammenfassung: The Milan Local Division dismissed the infringement action brought by Agathon AG against Intercom s.r.l. and Knarr Vertriebs GmbH, finding that the defendants' centring devices did not implement features 1.9 and 1.11 of EP 2 363 263 B1 (as amended) because the second rolling body row did not abut the encircling edge in the opened state. The patent was maintained in amended form (Auxiliary Request 1, combining original claims 1 and 3) after Intercom's counterclaim for revocation was partially upheld on novelty grounds as to the unamended claim 1; Agathon was ordered to bear 50% of each defendant's infringement-action costs, while each party bore its own costs for the validity proceedings.

    Rechtsfragen anzeigen (9)
    • Claim interpretation of features 1.8, 1.9, 1.11 — meaning of 'abuts' and 'opened state'
    • Role of prosecution history (EPO examination statements) in claim construction under Art. 69 EPC
    • Lack of novelty of original claim 1 in light of D3 (US 2,774,430)
    • Validity of dependent claims (claims 3 and others) for lack of novelty and inventive step
    • Patent amendment via Auxiliary Request 1 (combination of original claims 1 and 3)
    • Formstein/Gillette defence — non-infringement because defendants' products correspond to prior art
    • Doctrine of equivalents — whether spatial offset between second rolling body row and edge constitutes equivalent
    • Definition of 'attacked embodiment' and sufficiency of product samples to cover all variants
    • Cost apportionment where two defendants pursue identical defence strategy
  • 2026-01-28
    Infringement ActionÖffentlich

    Zusammenfassung: The Milan Local Division issued a post-interim-conference order in Agathon AG v. Intercom s.r.l. and KNARR Vertriebs GmbH, setting out rulings on admissibility of technical drawings filed by the claimant and the handling of conditional auxiliary requests per R. 30.1 RoP.

    Rechtsfragen anzeigen (3)
    • Post-interim-conference order (R. 105.5 RoP)
    • Admissibility of late-filed exhibits
    • Conditional auxiliary requests (R. 30.1 RoP)
Dokumente
Alle 232 Dokumente anzeigen
DokumenttitelDatumÖffentlich
Other Documents2026-10-07Nicht öffentlich
Mitteilung2026-09-01Nicht öffentlich
Other Documents2026-09-01Nicht öffentlich
Other Documents2026-07-21Nicht öffentlich
Verfahren abgeschlossen2026-05-05Nicht öffentlich
Entscheidung2026-05-05Nicht öffentlich
Decision2026-05-05Nicht öffentlich
Other Documents2026-03-25Nicht öffentlich
Other Documents2026-03-25Nicht öffentlich
Other Documents2026-03-17Nicht öffentlich
Angenommene Argumente
Was das Gericht akzeptiert hat — nach Partei.

  • Feature 1.9 'abuts' requires actual contact between the second rolling body row and the encircling edge in the opened state; the broad interpretation that any position on the conical top satisfies the claim is incorrect

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 69 EPC; patent description paras [0022]-[0024]; EPO prosecution history statement by Agathon that abutment was 'essential/decisive'

  • The defendants' products do not implement feature 1.9 because the second rolling body row sits at a spatial distance from the encircling edge in the opened state, as confirmed by physical samples and claimant's own technical drawings (Annexes 27/28)

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Claim 1 (amended) features 1.9 and 1.11; direct inspection of product samples

  • Formstein/Gillette defence: the defendants' products correspond to prior art embodiments (particularly D1, D2) in which the sleeve runs onto rolling body rows sequentially rather than simultaneously, and therefore cannot infringe either literally or under equivalents

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Formstein/Gillette defence; prior art D1 (US 3,469,894) and D2 (US 3,614,178)

  • Original claim 1 of EP'263 lacks novelty in light of D3 (US 2,774,430) which discloses the key features, rendering the unamended patent partially invalid

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 54 EPC; D3 (US 2,774,430)

  • Auxiliary Request 1 (combining claims 1 and 3) satisfies Art. 84, 123(2) and 123(3) EPC and renders the patent valid in amended form

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 84, 123(2), 123(3) EPC; R. 30 RoP

  • A plurality of protruding guiding bodies (feature 1.4) is indeed present in defendants' products, consistent with defendants' own novelty arguments regarding D1/D2

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Claim 1 feature 1.4; defendants' own submissions on D1/D2 novelty attack
Zurückgewiesene Argumente
Was das Gericht nicht akzeptiert hat — und warum.

  • Feature 1.9 'opened state' should be interpreted broadly to include any transitional phase toward the closed position, so that it makes no difference whether the second rolling body row abuts the edge or rests elsewhere on the conical top

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 69 EPC — rejected because patent description, figures, and claimant's own EPO prosecution statements require actual contact with the edge

  • The alleged infringing products infringe literally or under the doctrine of equivalents because the functional simultaneous loading effect is achieved regardless of the exact position of the second rolling body row

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Doctrine of equivalents — rejected because the products correspond to prior art and the Formstein/Gillette defence applies

  • Counterclaim for revocation of the patent based on lack of novelty or inventive step as to D1, D2, D4, D5-D8, D9

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 54 and 56 EPC — rejected; only D3 partially succeeded as to original claim 1