UPC CoA 534/2024
20. Sept. 2024·EP2867997 SEP · WIRELESS INDUCTIVE POWER TRANSFER
- Verfahrensdetails
- StatusCase Closed (Patent verletzt)VerfahrensartBerufungKategorieHauptberufung
- Parteien
- Beklagte
- Koninklijke Philips N.V.Unternehmen
Vertreter- Tilman Mueller-Bardehle Pagenberg
- Nicht genannt-Eisenführ Speiser
- Division
- Court of Appeal
- Technologie
- Electrical engineeringTelecommunications
- Sprache
- German
- Erste Entscheidung
- 3. Okt. 2025
| Median Tage bis zur ersten Entscheidung | |
|---|---|
| Gesamt-UPC | 124 |
| Richter Rian Kalden | Gesperrt |
| Richter Patricia Rombach | Gesperrt |
| Richter Ingeborg Simonsson | Gesperrt |
| Richter Alain Dumont | Gesperrt |
| Richter Uwe Schwengelbeck | Gesperrt |
Vor dem UPC: Belkin Group (24 Verfahren)·Philips Group (46 Verfahren)
Dieser Streit umfasst 10 weitere Verfahren
UPC CFI 615/2025·UPC CFI 586/2025·UPC CFI 30/2025·UPC CFI 32/2025·UPC CoA 845/2024 und 5 weitere
8 weitere Beklagte zum selben oder einem verwandten Patent
UPC CFI 2719/2026·UPC CoA 54/2026·UPC CFI 915/2025·UPC CFI 1871/2025·UPC CFI 524/2025 und 3 weitere
Starten Sie die kostenlose Testphase, um die Ausgänge zu sehen.
Weitere Verfahren: Court of Appeal·2024
- 2025-10-03Appeal RoP220.1Öffentlich
Zusammenfassung: Court of Appeal decision on patent infringement and counterclaim for invalidity. Belkin GmbH, Belkin International Inc. and Belkin Limited were found to infringe Philips' patent EP 2 867 997. The appeal court partially modified the first-instance judgment: it ordered Belkin (GmbH, International, Limited) to recall, permanently remove and destroy the infringing products; excluded acts by Belkin GmbH and Belkin Limited in Germany from the injunction; and set penalty payments of up to EUR 100,000 per day for breach of the cease-and-desist order. Philips' cross-appeal seeking electronic disclosure was rejected. Costs were split 50/50 between Belkin (three entities) and Philips for the infringement action; Belkin bore the invalidity counterclaim costs. The patent was maintained (revocation counterclaim dismissed).
Rechtsfragen anzeigen (6)
- Definition of 'offering' under Art. 25(a) UPCA (economic, not strictly legal contract-law concept)
- Secondary liability of company directors for patent infringement
- Knowledge requirement (awareness of illegality) for accessory liability of managing directors
- Scope of remedial measures (recall, removal, destruction) under Art. 64(2) UPCA
- Penalty payments under R. 354.3 RoP
- Counterclaim for revocation – patent maintained
- 2025-10-03Appeal RoP220.1Öffentlich
Zusammenfassung: The Court of Appeal issued a rectification order under R.353 VerfO (Rules of Procedure), correcting an obvious error in headnote 7 of its decision of 3 October 2025 in the appeal concerning Philips v. Belkin (infringement action and counterclaim for revocation of EP 2 867 997). The corrected headnote 7 now reads that claimant requests for recall, removal from distribution channels, and destruction must generally specify a deadline for completion, which must already be set in the decision or final order. This is one of three identical rectification orders (also UPC_CoA_19/2025 and UPC_CoA_683/2024), corresponding to the three related appeals.
Rechtsfragen anzeigen (2)
- Rectification of obvious error in Court decision under R.353 RoP
- Recall and removal orders — deadline requirement
| Dokumenttitel | Datum | Öffentlich |
|---|---|---|
| Other Documents | 2026-10-19 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Other Documents | 2026-10-19 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Other Documents | 2026-10-19 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Note | 2026-10-19 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Receipt | 2026-10-01 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Cover sheet | 2026-10-01 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Application Appellant | 2026-10-01 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Anordnung | 2025-10-09 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Order | 2025-10-09 | Öffentlich |
| Anordnung | 2025-10-09 | Nicht öffentlich |