UPC CFI 74/2024
22. Feb. 2024·EP3866051 Einheitspatent · MOBILE COMPUTER CONFIGURED TO READ MULTIPLE DECODABLE INDICIA
Hauptaktenzeichen: ACT 9216/2024
- Verfahrensdetails
- StatusCase ClosedVerfahrensartEinstweilige VerfügungKategorieEinstweilige Maßnahmen
- Parteien
- Beklagte
- Scandit AGUnternehmen
Vertreter- Johannes Bukow-Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP
- Jan Zecher-Fish & Richardson P.C.
- Division
- Munich LD
- Technologie
- Electrical engineeringComputer technology
- Sprache
- German
- Erste Entscheidung
- 27. Aug. 2024
- EPA-Einspruch
- Scandit AGZurückgenommen2024-11-21
- Scandit, Inc.Zurückgenommen2024-11-21
| Einstweilige Verfügung erlassen | Median Tage bis zur ersten Entscheidung | |
|---|---|---|
| Gesamt-UPC | 54% (38/70) | 124 |
| Munich LD | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Matthias Zigann | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Tobias Pichlmaier | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter András Kupecz | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
Vor dem UPC: Hand Held Products, Inc. (15 Verfahren)·Scandit AG (15 Verfahren)
Dieser Streit umfasst 5 weitere Verfahren
UPC CoA 520/2024·UPC CFI 408/2024·UPC CFI 73/2024·UPC APP 12933/2025·UPC APP 7141/2025
Starten Sie die kostenlose Testphase, um die Ausgänge zu sehen.
- 2024-08-27Application for provisional measuresÖffentlich
Zusammenfassung: Munich Local Division granted a preliminary injunction (provisional measures) against Hand Held Products for indirect/contributory infringement of Scandit AG's barcode-scanning patent EP 3 866 051. The court found indirect infringement (mittelbare Patentverletzung) of claims 1 and 10 proved to the necessary standard and ordered Hand Held Products to cease and desist from offering/supplying the infringing SDK software in multiple UPC member states, subject to a periodic penalty of up to EUR 100,000 per day of non-compliance. The application for direct infringement was rejected. The injunction was conditioned on Scandit providing security of EUR 500,000. Cost applications by both parties were dismissed.
Rechtsfragen anzeigen (6)
- Indirect/contributory patent infringement (mittelbare Patentverletzung)
- Distinction between direct and indirect infringement of apparatus claims
- Conditions for preliminary injunction in provisional measures proceedings
- Relative vs. absolute injunction for indirect infringement
- Proportionality and standard for validity assessment in PI proceedings
- Security as condition for enforceability
| Dokumenttitel | Datum | Öffentlich |
|---|---|---|
| Outcome of the Order | 2025-04-23 | Nicht öffentlich |
| R 9 Freigabe Sicherheit | 2025-04-23 | Öffentlich |
| Receipt | 2025-04-23 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Application release security | 2025-04-22 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Acknowledgement-of-lodging | 2024-10-09 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Antrag | 2024-10-09 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Outcome of the Order | 2024-09-27 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Confirmation of appointment | 2024-09-27 | Öffentlich |
| Receipt | 2024-09-24 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Acknowledgement-of-change-of-a-representative | 2024-09-24 | Nicht öffentlich |
Scandit AG applied for provisional measures against Hand Held Products, Inc. concerning EP 3 866 051, a barcode-scanning mobile computer patent, before the Munich Local Division. The court granted a preliminary injunction for indirect infringement of claims 1 and 10 through Hand Held Products' SDK software, but rejected the application for direct infringement because completion of the patented device by customers was not sufficiently certain. The injunction was conditioned on Scandit providing security of EUR 500,000.
Indirect (contributory) infringement of barcode-scanning patent claims 1 and 10 established through SDK software supply
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 26 UPCA (indirect infringement / mittelbare Patentverletzung)Hinweis: The Munich Local Division found indirect infringement proved to the necessary standard: Hand Held Products' SDK software, together with videos and documentation, enables downstream customers to create a device realising all claim features, satisfying the requirements for indirect infringement (Gefährdungstatbestand).
Relative prohibition (Relativverbot) rather than absolute prohibition appropriate for indirect infringement injunction where legitimate non-infringing uses of the SDK exist
BeklagterHinweis: The court considered whether the infringing use could be sufficiently addressed through a relative rather than absolute prohibition, weighing remaining possibilities for non-infringing uses of the SDK.
Direct infringement of device claim established because defendant appropriates downstream customer acts (verlängerte Werkbank / extended workbench theory)
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 25 UPCABegründung: The court held that direct infringement requires that completion of the patented device by the customer is certain and specifically defined; given the multiple alternative programming and hardware configuration possibilities with the SDK, this certainty was lacking. Direct infringement was therefore not established.
Patent EP 3 866 051 is invalid (validity challenge in PI proceedings)
BeklagterBegründung: In PI proceedings a full examination of all invalidity arguments is not possible; the number of arguments is limited to the best three from respondent's perspective. The court found that the validity challenges raised did not overcome the presumption of validity.
Weitere Fälle zu diesem Grundsatz ansehen.
The injunction order reproduces the claim language for claims 1 and 10 of EP 3 866 051 in German, describing a mobile computer/barcode reading device configured to capture, decode, and display images of decodable indicia with product images from a lookup table database. The key construction issue was whether Hand Held Products' SDK, by enabling downstream customers to assemble such a device, constituted indirect infringement — held yes; but whether it constituted direct infringement through the extended workbench theory — held no, due to multiple alternative implementation possibilities.