UPClytics
DEEN
AnmeldenTesten
Alle Fälle anzeigen

UPC CoA 623/2025

3. Juli 2025·EP2778423 · Centrifugal pump assembly

Folgen
Verfahrensdetails
Status
Case Closed (Patent teilweise nichtig)
Verfahrensart
Berufung
Kategorie
Hauptberufung
Parteien
Beklagte
Vertreter
Division
Court of Appeal
Richter
Technologie
  • Mechanical engineering
    Engines, pumps, turbines
Sprache
German
Erste Entscheidung
27. Mai 2026
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 Steven KitchenGesperrt
Richter Uwe AusfelderGesperrt

Vor dem UPC: Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd. (6 Verfahren)·Grundfos Holding A/S (7 Verfahren)

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

Dieser Streit umfasst 5 weitere Verfahren

UPC CoA 622/2025·UPC CFI 426/2025·CC 26515/2024·UPC CFI 11/2024·UPC APP 8530/2025

1 weitere Beklagte zum selben oder einem verwandten Patent

UPC CFI 835/2025

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

Weitere Verfahren: Court of Appeal·2025

Entscheidungen
  • 2026-05-27
    Appeal RoP220.2Öffentlich

    Zusammenfassung: The Court of Appeal (UPC) reversed the Düsseldorf Local Division's first-instance decision, partially revoking EP 2 778 423 (claims 1–3, 5, and 11, to the extent not dependent on surviving claims) for lack of inventive step over prior art D5 combined with general technical knowledge, while maintaining claims 4, 6, 7, 9, and 10. As a consequence, the infringement action by Grundfos against Hefei was dismissed in full because the infringement allegations were based solely on the revoked claims and non-patentable auxiliary requests.

    Rechtsfragen anzeigen (9)
    • New submissions on appeal (R. 222.2 RoP) — admissibility threshold
    • Claim construction — distinction between 'Umschalten' (switching) and 'Zuschalten' (adding) external speed control
    • Claim construction — primacy of language of proceedings (German) over English translation (Art. 70(1) EPC)
    • Claim construction — consistent interpretation of identical terms across claim features
    • Lack of inventive step of claim 1 over DE 101 39 510 A1 (D5) combined with general technical knowledge
    • Admissibility of new prior-art combinations raised in nullity counterclaim on appeal
    • Validity of dependent claims 2–3, 5–11 and auxiliary requests
    • Dismissal of infringement action following partial revocation of patent
    • Refusal to stay proceedings pending separate nullity action
Dokumente
Alle 82 Dokumente anzeigen
DokumenttitelDatumÖffentlich
Verfahren abgeschlossen2026-05-27Nicht öffentlich
Entscheidung2026-05-27Nicht öffentlich
Decision2026-05-27Öffentlich
Decision2026-05-27Nicht öffentlich
Mitteilung2026-05-26Nicht öffentlich
Receipt2026-03-12Nicht öffentlich
Cover sheet2026-03-12Nicht öffentlich
Document Respondent2026-03-12Nicht öffentlich
Mündliches Verfahren abgeschlossen2026-02-26Nicht öffentlich
Hearing recording reference document2026-02-26Nicht öffentlich
Angenommene Argumente
Was das Gericht akzeptiert hat — nach Partei.

  • Both parties correctly argued that 'Umschalten' means switching permanently to external speed control while 'Zuschalten' means switching on an as-needed/temporary basis — both ultimately constitute a switch to exclusive external control — contrary to the Local Division's interpretation

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Claim construction from patent description (Abs. 10, 12, 14); Art. 69 EPC

  • Claim 1 is not patentable for lack of inventive step starting from D5 (DE 101 39 510 A1) combined with general technical knowledge that circulation pumps are centrifugal pumps with electric motors

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 56 EPCA; R. 222.2 RoP

  • The infringement action must be dismissed because the infringement allegations rely solely on the revoked claims (1, 5, 11) and the non-patentable auxiliary requests

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 25 UPCA

  • Feature 4.2 (electronic means to determine whether external control is connected) is satisfied by detection of an external control signal without requiring active detection of disconnection or a dedicated handshaking mechanism

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Claim construction; patent description Abs. 12, 27–28
Zurückgewiesene Argumente
Was das Gericht nicht akzeptiert hat — und warum.

  • Claim 1 requires the means to be capable of both 'Umschalten' AND 'Zuschalten' cumulatively

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Claim construction — 'oder' (or) in claim 1 feature 4.1

  • The electronic means under feature 4.2 must actively detect the absence of external control and must include independent decision logic before switching

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Claim construction

  • New prior-art argument on appeal based on D5 as starting point in combination with D7 should be admitted as not being new (previously raised in reply to nullity counterclaim)

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: R. 222.2 RoP

  • Proceedings should be stayed pending resolution of the separate nullity action filed by Shinhoo Europe S.r.l.

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 56(1) UPCA; R. 118.2(a) RoP

  • Claim 4 (sensor/microswitch detecting physical connector engagement) lacks inventive step over D5 and D6

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 56 EPCA

  • Claim 6 (external control can activate/deactivate self-learning setpoint adaptation) lacks inventive step over D5 combined with D1 or D12

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 56 EPCA

  • Claim 7 (external switching means to reset self-learning adaptation and/or modify control curves) lacks inventive step over D5 combined with D7

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 56 EPCA

  • Claim 9 (separate speed control signals from other signals on same line via separation means) lacks inventive step over D1 or D2 with general technical knowledge

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 56 EPCA

  • Claim 10 (means to identify which heating circuit is being circulated in a multi-circuit system) lacks inventive step over D5/D7

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 56 EPCA