UPClytics
Alle Fälle anzeigen

UPC CoA 534/2024

20. Sept. 2024·EP2867997 SEP · WIRELESS INDUCTIVE POWER TRANSFER

Verfahrensdetails
Status
Case Closed (Patent verletzt)
Verfahrensart
Berufung
Kategorie
Hauptberufung
Parteien
Kläger
Vertreter
Beklagte
Vertreter
Division
Court of Appeal
Technologie
  • Electrical engineering
    Telecommunications
Sprache
German
Erste Entscheidung
3. Okt. 2025
Im Vergleich
Wie lange das Gericht bis zu einer ersten Entscheidung braucht.
Median Tage bis zur ersten Entscheidung
Gesamt-UPC124
Richter Rian KaldenGesperrt
Richter Patricia RombachGesperrt
Richter Ingeborg SimonssonGesperrt
Richter Alain DumontGesperrt
Richter Uwe SchwengelbeckGesperrt

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

Entscheidungen
  • 2025-10-03
    Appeal 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
  • 2025-10-03
    Appeal 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
DokumenttitelDatumÖffentlich
Other Documents2026-10-19Nicht öffentlich
Other Documents2026-10-19Nicht öffentlich
Other Documents2026-10-19Nicht öffentlich
Note2026-10-19Nicht öffentlich
Receipt2026-10-01Nicht öffentlich
Cover sheet2026-10-01Nicht öffentlich
Application Appellant2026-10-01Nicht öffentlich
Anordnung2025-10-09Nicht öffentlich
Order2025-10-09Öffentlich
Anordnung2025-10-09Nicht öffentlich