UPC Analytics
DEEN

Entscheidungen

DatumFallKammerVerfahrensartAntragAusgangZusammenfassung
2026-02-27UPC_CFI_344/2025Mannheim LDInfringement ActionProzessualNur prozessualThe Mannheim Local Division (judge-rapporteur Johansson) ordered Defendant 1 (SZ DJI Technology Co., Ltd.) to pay a separate court fee for its counterclaim for revocation within 14 days, ruling that the fee already paid by Defendants 2-4 for their earlier counterclaim does not cover Defendant 1's subsequently filed separate counterclaim, even if the content is the same. Failure to pay may result in a default decision under R. 355 RoP.
2026-02-24UPC_CFI_735/2024Mannheim LDInfringement ActionVerletzung (Hauptsache)outcomeName.otherThe Mannheim Local Division issued a decision in TRUMPF Laser UK v. IPG Laser GmbH & Co. KG concerning EP 2 951 625 (optical apparatus for laser light), addressing infringement and a counterclaim for revocation; the outcome on infringement/validity requires additional pages not captured in the excerpt.
2026-02-18UPC_CFI_819/2024Mannheim LDWithdrawal (RoP265)RücknahmeZurückgenommenThe Mannheim Local Division permitted Corning's partial withdrawal of its infringement action (EP 3 296 274) against defendants Hisense Gorenje Germany GmbH and Hisense Europe Holding GmbH (defendants 1 and 2) under R. 265 RoP. The infringement action continues against TCL and LG (defendants 3–6). Simultaneously, the counterclaim for revocation filed by defendants 1 and 2 was also withdrawn and declared closed. Corning bears the costs of the withdrawn infringement proceedings against defendants 1–2; defendants 1–2 receive a 40% reimbursement (EUR 8,000) of their counterclaim court fees.
2026-02-12UPC_CFI_575/2025Mannheim LDPreliminary objectionmotionName.jurisdictionalAbgewiesenThe Mannheim Local Division rejected the preliminary objection filed by all seven defendants (led by Sovex Systems and Solvest entities) in Honeywell's infringement action concerning EP 2 563 695 B1. The Court retained jurisdiction over the Dutch defendants under Art. 33(1) UPCA and rejected the defendants' arguments challenging international jurisdiction over Hemtech (Bosnia and Herzegovina) under Art. 31 UPCA and Art. 71b Brussels I Recast. The Court found Honeywell had sufficiently asserted German-directed infringing acts at the pleadings stage, without needing to pre-judge the merits. Leave to appeal the rejection was not granted by the judge-rapporteur.
2026-02-04UPC_CFI_530/2025Paris LDInfringement ActionProzessualNur prozessualParis Local Division rejected Adobe's application for a default decision against KEEEX under R.158.5 and R.355.1 RoP. The court held that KEEEX had complied with the order to provide a bank guarantee (required following an earlier procedural order of 19 December 2025) and that Adobe's formal objections to the guarantee were unsubstantiated. The lack of diligence required to justify a default decision was not established.
2026-01-30UPC_CFI_365/2023Mannheim LDInfringement ActionVerletzung (Hauptsache)outcomeName.otherThe Mannheim Local Division confirmed the earlier imposition of penalties order of 20 January 2026 against Kodak GmbH and related entities for non-compliance with a final judgment requiring provision of financial and technical information to FUJIFILM Corporation (EP 3 511 174). The Court rejected Kodak's challenge and upheld the maximum daily penalty as justified given the extent and seriousness of the non-compliance. Leave to appeal was granted to develop UPC case law on enforcement measures.
2026-01-26UPC_CFI_2045/2025Mannheim LDInfringement ActionProzessualNur prozessualOrder of the President of the Court of First Instance granting Amazon's application under R.323 RoP to change the language of proceedings from German to English (the language in which the patent was granted). The court found that none of the defendants is based in Germany, that they all require English for internal coordination, and that the circumstances of the case and fairness under Art.49(5) UPCA justified the change.
2026-01-13UPC_CFI_850/2024Mannheim LDApplication RoP262AProzessualNur prozessualThe Mannheim Local Division issued a further procedural order in ZTE v. Samsung addressing Samsung's request to produce a licence agreement, granting confidentiality protection under R. 262A RoP and permitting Samsung to file a further pleading on FRAND topics under R. 36 RoP.
2025-12-23UPC_CFI_683/2025Mannheim LDInfringement ActionVerletzung (Hauptsache)ZurückgenommenHuawei Technologies Co. Ltd. withdrew its infringement action concerning EP 3 471 419 against all defendants (Shenzhen Transsion Holdings and associated entities) before closure of the written procedure. Defendants 1-4 and 6 consented; Defendant 5 (ASD SAS) was unrepresented. No cost compensation was sought. Huawei was ordered a 60% reimbursement of court fees under R.370.9(b)(i) and R.370.11 RoP.
2025-12-23UPC_CFI_538/2025Mannheim LDInfringement ActionVerletzung (Hauptsache)ZurückgenommenSun Patent Trust withdrew its infringement action concerning EP 2 903 267 against all defendants (Shenzhen Transsion Holdings and associated entities) before closure of the written procedure. Defendants 1-4 and 6-8 consented; Defendant 5 (ASD SAS) was unrepresented. No cost compensation was sought. Sun Patent Trust was ordered a 60% reimbursement of court fees under R.370.9(b)(i) and R.370.11 RoP.
2025-12-23UPC_CFI_499/2025Mannheim LDInfringement ActionVerletzung (Hauptsache)ZurückgenommenNEC Corporation withdrew its infringement action against all defendants (Shenzhen Transsion Holdings and associated entities) before closure of the written procedure. All represented defendants consented. Defendant 5 (ASD SAS) was unrepresented but showed no interest in proceedings. No cost compensation was sought. NEC was ordered a 60% reimbursement of court fees under R.370.9(b)(i) and R.370.11 RoP.
2025-12-23UPC_CFI_501/2025Mannheim LDInfringement ActionVerletzung (Hauptsache)ZurückgenommenNEC Corporation withdrew its infringement action concerning EP 3 057 321 against all defendants (Shenzhen Transsion Holdings and associated entities) before closure of the written procedure. All represented defendants consented. Defendant 5 (ASD SAS) was unrepresented. No cost compensation was sought. NEC was ordered a 60% reimbursement of court fees under R.370.9(b)(i) and R.370.11 RoP.
2025-12-23UPC_CFI_850/2024Mannheim LDInfringement ActionProzessualNur prozessualThe Mannheim Local Division issued a procedural order in ZTE v. Samsung proceedings addressing Samsung's request to produce a licence agreement and requests for further written pleadings under R. 36/263 RoP on FRAND defence, as well as scheduling of an interim conference.
2025-12-19UPC_CFI_660/2024Mannheim LDInfringement ActionVerletzung (Hauptsache)Nichtig erklärtThe Court revoked European patent EP 3 652 914 B1 in its entirety in the territories of France and Germany on the basis of the counterclaim for revocation filed by Palo Alto Networks. The claims (including the unconditionally amended main request and all auxiliary requests) were found to lack inventive step in light of the prior art. As a consequence, the infringement action was dismissed. Centripetal was ordered to bear the costs of the litigation. The value in dispute was set at EUR 2 million (EUR 1 million each for the infringement action and counterclaim).
2025-12-18UPC_CFI_716/2024Mannheim LDInfringement ActionVerletzung (Hauptsache)VerletztThe Mannheim Local Division found that Bekaert Combustion Technology B.V. and NV Bekaert SA infringed Polidoro's premixed burner patent EP 2 037 175 and granted an injunction, recall/removal, destruction, information order, interim damages, and publication of the decision.
2025-12-12UPC_CFI_766/2025Milan LDInfringement ActionProzessualNur prozessualThe Milan Local Division ordered alternative service on Shenzhen Asmax Infinite Technology Co. under the Hague Service Convention after two failed service attempts (rejected by Chinese authorities due to incorrect reference to Hong Kong), applying Art. 15(2) of the Convention.
2025-12-05UPC_CFI_414/2024Mannheim LDInfringement ActionVerletzung (Hauptsache)Nicht verletztDecision of the Mannheim Local Division dated 5 December 2025 dismissing Centripetal Limited's infringement action against Keysight Technologies entities for infringement of EP 3 821 580 (methods and systems for network protection). Centripetal alleged direct infringement of claim 16 and indirect infringement of claim 1 in Germany, Italy, France and the Netherlands. The panel found that the defendants' products (AppStack, SecureStack-SSL, Threat Simulator) did not read on the claims as construed: defendants denied in the oral hearing that the source code contained functionality for threat-metadata-based routing to a CAS (a claim requirement), and Centripetal failed to substantiate its contrary position with sufficient evidence or proof under R. 171 RoP. The conditional counterclaim for revocation was not decided as the condition (infringement finding) was not met. Centripetal was ordered to bear all costs of the infringement proceedings.
2025-12-05UPC_CFI_414/2024Mannheim LDInfringement ActionProzessualNur prozessualProcedural order from the Mannheim Local Division dated 5 December 2025 rejecting Centripetal Limited's request to reopen the oral hearing and appoint an expert to review the source code of Keysight's products, filed on 24 November 2025 after the closure of the hearing. The court held that R. 114 RoP permits reopening only in exceptional cases identified during the oral hearing itself (e.g. for necessary additional testimony or experimental evidence emerging from the hearing) and is not available as a tool to introduce new infringement allegations after closure. Claimant's argument that defendants' counsel had made false statements about source code functionality was not sufficient to trigger R. 114 RoP. The request was rejected.
2025-11-27UPC_CFI_530/2025Paris LDInfringement ActionProzessualNur prozessualParis Local Division rejected all preliminary objections raised by the defendants (Adobe, OpenAI, Truepic, JDF Projects and C2PA) in KEEEX's infringement action. The court upheld the jurisdiction of the UPC and the internal competence of the Paris Local Division under Art.33.1(a) UPCA, finding that infringing acts alleged in France established competence. Defendants were ordered to file their statements of defence by 2 January 2026. Costs deferred to the merits decision.
2025-11-03UPC_CFI_662/2025Mannheim LDInfringement ActionVerletzung (Hauptsache)AbgewiesenThe Mannheim Local Division rejected the preliminary objection (R.19 RoP) filed by multiple Geely group defendants challenging the jurisdiction and competence of the Mannheim Local Division. The Court found it had jurisdiction under Art. 33(1)(b) UPCA over all defendants as they are members of the same corporate group, share business relations as required, and face the same infringement allegation regarding the same patent claim. The Court also established that the requirement of a 'business relationship' under Art.33(1)(b) UPCA does not require complete identity of infringing acts but merely that the accused acts are aligned in purpose. The infringement action on the merits continues.
2025-10-22UPC_CFI_575/2025Mannheim LDPreliminary objectionmotionName.jurisdictionalNur prozessualThe Mannheim Local Division (judge-rapporteur Marjolein Visser) ruled on a preliminary objection filed by the defendants in an infringement action by Honeywell Control Systems Ltd. concerning EP 2 563 695 B1. The court dismissed the request to transfer the case to The Hague regarding Sovex Systems (D1) and the other Dutch defendants (D2-D6), finding that the Mannheim Local Division has competence under Art. 33(1)(a) UPCA based on alleged infringement occurring in Germany. The request to dismiss for lack of international jurisdiction over Hemtech (D7, Bosnia) was also addressed.
2025-10-15UPC_CFI_247/2025Mannheim LDInfringement ActionVerletzung (Hauptsache)ZurückgenommenHuawei Technologies Co. Ltd. withdrew its infringement action against MediaTek Inc. and MediaTek Germany GmbH, and MediaTek Germany GmbH also withdrew its counterclaim for revocation, both with mutual consent, before the close of the written procedure. Neither party sought costs. Both Huawei and MediaTek Germany were each ordered a partial reimbursement of court fees (60%) under R.370.9(b)(i) and R.370.11 RoP.
2025-10-09UPC_CFI_132/2024Mannheim LDInfringement ActionVerletzung (Hauptsache)Nicht verletztThe Mannheim Local Division dismissed both the infringement action by Total Semiconductor LLC against Texas Instruments entities concerning EP 2 746 967 (DVFS processor) and the counterclaim for revocation, finding no infringement due to insufficiently substantiated assertions and the patent remaining valid.
2025-10-03UPC_CFI_819/2024Mannheim LDWithdrawal (RoP265)RücknahmeZurückgenommenDecision permitting Corning Incorporated's partial withdrawal of its infringement action (EP 3 296 274) against Defendants 7 to 9 (LG Electronics entities). Defendants 7-9 did not contest the withdrawal. The proceedings against LG Electronics entities were declared closed. The counterclaim for revocation filed by Defendants 3-9 (TCL and LG entities) concerning the same case was addressed separately.
2025-10-02UPC_CFI_162/2024Mannheim LDInfringement ActionVerletzung (Hauptsache)Nicht verletztThe Mannheim Local Division dismissed Hurom Co. Ltd.'s infringement action against NUC Electronics Co. Ltd. (Korea) concerning EP 2 028 981 (juice extractor), finding no infringement of claim 1 in the separated part of the proceedings.
2025-10-02UPC_CFI_159/2024Mannheim LDInfringement ActionVerletzung (Hauptsache)VerletztThe Mannheim Local Division found that NUC Electronics Europe GmbH and WARMCOOK infringed claim 1 of Hurom Co. Ltd.'s EP 2 028 981 (juice extractor) in Poland, Spain and the United Kingdom, ordering damages to be assessed and full disclosure of infringing sales; costs awarded to Hurom.
2025-10-01UPC_CFI_611/2025Mannheim LDPreliminary objectionmotionName.jurisdictionalNur prozessualThe Mannheim Local Division issued a procedural order on a preliminary objection (R. 19 RoP) filed by Grizzly Tools / Lidl entities against Robert Bosch's infringement action, ruling on international and territorial jurisdiction under Brussels Ia Regulation (Art. 71b) and holding that the preliminary objection is an internal procedural tool.
2025-09-08UPC_CFI_530/2025Paris LDGeneric applicationProzessualNur prozessualThe Paris Local Division issued a procedural order aligning service deadlines for the multiple defendants in the infringement action filed by KEEEX SAS against Adobe, OpenAI, TruePic, the Joint Development Foundation Projects and the Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity (C2PA) concerning EP 2 949 070. The order addressed technical difficulties encountered in serving defendants located in Ireland and the USA under The Hague Convention, and set extended time limits for responses.
2025-07-23UPC_CFI_365/2023Mannheim LDGeneric applicationProzessualNur prozessualMannheim Local Division issued an enforcement order imposing penalty payments on Kodak entities for non-compliance with the obligation to destroy infringing embodiments under a prior decision. The Court granted Fujifilm's application for imposition of penalties for each week of non-compliance, while rejecting other enforcement requests. Defendants bear the costs.
2025-06-06UPC_CFI_471/2023Mannheim LDInfringement ActionNicht verletztThe Mannheim Local Division ruled on the infringement action and revocation counterclaim regarding EP 2 479 680 (adaptive bitrate HTTP streaming). The infringement claim was dismissed as the defendants' systems did not literally or equivalently infringe the patent. The revocation counterclaim was dismissed; the patent was maintained in amended form under Auxiliary Request 12. Infringement costs were borne by the claimants; revocation counterclaim costs were borne by the defendants. Each party bore its own representation costs. The dispute value was set at EUR 20,000,000.
2025-05-28UPC_CFI_189/2025Mannheim LDGeneric OrderNur prozessualThe Mannheim Local Division set the preliminary value in dispute at EUR 4,000,000 in Samsung Electronics' 5G SEP infringement action against ZTE entities concerning EP 4 050 804, and ordered Samsung to pay an additional advance on fees of EUR 26,000. The court found the initial estimate of EUR 500,000 greatly underestimated the value given that the action attacked all standard-essential 5G mobile devices of ZTE and had economic bearing on the broader FRAND rate dispute between the parties.
2025-05-14UPC_CFI_132/2024Mannheim LDGeneric applicationProzessualNur prozessualProcedural order in infringement action by TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR against Texas Instruments entities. Decision on Claimant's request for a further written submission under Rules 12.5 and 36 RoP in response to Defendants' rejoinder: final decision partially postponed to the oral hearing; request otherwise rejected. The court found no new arguments by Defendants requiring a response beyond what was already permitted.
2025-05-08UPC_CFI_716/2024Mannheim LDGeneric applicationProzessualNur prozessualProcedural order granting Claimant Polidoro S.p.a. a one-week extension to 19 May 2025 for filing its Reply to the Statement of Defence and Defence to the Counterclaim for Revocation. Extension justified because access to the unredacted version of the Statement of Defence was delayed under Rule 262A RoP.
2025-05-02UPC_CFI_86/2025Mannheim LDGeneric applicationNur prozessualOrder from the President of the Court of First Instance dated 2 May 2025, under R. 323 RoP, changing the language of proceedings in Mannheim Local Division case UPC_CFI_86/2025 to the language of the patent (as applied for by The Walt Disney Company entities as defendants). The order sets out principles on language change: the possibility of changing to the patent language does not conflict with the claimant's initial choice; the defendant's position is decisive when the balancing of interests is equal; and since the claimant has flexibility in choosing where to file, the language of the patent is generally not unfair to the claimant.
2025-04-24ACT_588685/2023Paris LDInfringement ActionVerletzung (Hauptsache)VerletztThe Paris Local Division found that Laser Components SAS infringed EP 3 404 726 owned by Seoul Viosys Co. Ltd., ordered corrective measures including withdrawal and destruction of infringing UV-C LED chips from the French market, and directed disclosure of information for damages calculation, while reserving the quantum of damages for a separate procedure.
2025-04-23UPC_CFI_471/2023Mannheim LDInfringement ActionNur prozessualPre-trial procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division in an infringement action concerning EP 2 479 680 (adaptive bitrate streaming), confirming the oral hearing date and identifying key contested issues, including claim construction of the HTTP streaming method claims, direct and equivalent infringement, and the defendant's invalidity counterclaim. The order is preparatory and contains no substantive ruling.
2025-04-18UPC_CFI_358/2023Paris LDApplication RoP262.1 (b)ProzessualNur prozessualParis Local Division ruled on a third-party access request to the case file under R.262.1(b) RoP by LIFE365 (Italian companies involved in compatible printer cartridges). The Court granted partial access to certain public procedural documents (including certain memorials and prior art documents cited), but withheld documents covered by confidentiality orders and those declared inadmissible.
2025-04-02UPC_CFI_365/2023Mannheim LDGeneric OrderVerletzung (Hauptsache)VerletztThe Mannheim Local Division found that Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, and Kodak Holding GmbH infringed EP 3 511 174 (relating to printing plate technology) owned by FUJIFILM. The defendants were ordered to cease infringement, provide information, destroy infringing products, recall products from commerce, and pay FUJIFILM EUR 300,000 as an interim award on legal costs. The counterclaim for revocation was dismissed. The value of the dispute was set at EUR 15,000,000.
2025-04-02UPC_CFI_365/2023Mannheim LDGeneric OrderProzessualNur prozessualMannheim Local Division separated and ordered independent proceedings for claims and counterclaims relating to the UK national part of European patent EP 3 511 174, following the ECJ's judgment in C-339/22 (BSH Hausgeräte) regarding UPC's jurisdiction under Brussels Ia Regulation. The Court acted after awaiting the ECJ decision which was delivered after the oral hearing.
2025-03-11ACT_17336/2024Mannheim LDInfringement ActionProzessualNur prozessualThe Mannheim Local Division ordered a separation of proceedings under Rules 302.1, 303.2 and 340.2 RoP, splitting off claims related to Poland, Spain, Turkey, and the UK pending guidance from the ECJ (Case C-339/22) on international jurisdiction under the Brussels Ia Regulation.
2025-03-11UPC_CFI_159/2024Mannheim LDGeneric OrderVerletzung (Hauptsache)VerletztHurom's patent EP 2 028 981 (slow juicer) was found infringed by NUC Electronics Europe GmbH and WARMCOOK. An injunction was granted covering France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Denmark and Romania. Defendants were ordered to pay damages (amount to be determined), provide information, destroy/recall infringing products, and pay EUR 56,000 in interim legal costs. The court also addressed the intertemporal application of UPCA substantive law to acts committed before and after 1 June 2023. Partial dismissal of remaining requests. Value in dispute set at EUR 675,000.
2025-02-17UPC_CFI_440/2023Paris LDInfringement ActionProzessualNur prozessualThe Paris Local Division issued an interim management order following the preparatory conference (R. 105.5 RoP) in the infringement action by Seoul Viosys against Laser Components SAS and Photon Wave Co. concerning EP 3 404 726 (UV LEDs). The order summarised the key contested legal and factual issues (claim interpretation, PKB chip characteristics), fixed the case value at EUR 500,000 (rejecting the defendant's argument for EUR 250,000), and scheduled the oral hearing for 13 March 2025.
2025-02-06UPC_CFI_210/2023Mannheim LDGeneric OrderProzessualVerletztProcedural order publishing the redacted version of the substantive decision of 22 November 2024 in the infringement action (with FRAND counterclaim and invalidity counterclaim) between Panasonic Holdings Corporation and OPPO/OROPE Germany GmbH. The underlying decision (issued 22 November 2024): patent EP 2 568 724 infringed; injunction, recall, disclosure and provisional damages of EUR 250,000 ordered; invalidity counterclaim and FRAND counterclaim dismissed; defendants to bear costs; value in dispute set at over EUR 50 million.
2025-02-06UPC_CFI_210/2023Mannheim LDCounterclaim for revocationNichtigkeit (Hauptsache)VerletztThe Mannheim Local Division (Judge-rapporteur Prof. Dr. Tochtermann) published the redacted version of its decision of 22 November 2024 concerning EP 2 568 724 (SEP/FRAND). The decision found infringement by OPPO and OROPE and ordered: (I) a pan-European cease and desist; (II)–(IV) recall and destruction; (V) damages liability from 17 December 2014 (for the predecessor's rights) and from 29 July 2016 (for Panasonic); (VI) EUR 250,000 preliminary damages; (VII) residual infringement claims dismissed. The counterclaim for revocation (B) was dismissed. The FRAND counterclaim (C) was dismissed. Defendants bear the costs of the proceedings.
2025-02-04UPC_CFI_218/2023Mannheim LDApplication Rop 265VergleichThe Mannheim Local Division issued a procedural order confirming that Panasonic Holdings Corporation (claimant) and the Xiaomi entities and related defendants had reached a settlement, resulting in the mutual withdrawal of both the infringement action and the defendants' joint counterclaim for revocation concerning EP 3 069 315. Costs were settled by agreement between the parties; no court cost decision was required.
2025-01-30UPC_CFI_359/2023Mannheim LDInfringement ActionNur prozessualPre-trial order of Mannheim Local Division in FUJIFILM v Kodak (EP 3 476 616) setting out preliminary views and questions from the judge-rapporteur in advance of the oral hearing. The order identifies key issues on claim construction, novelty and inventive step (prior art: WO 379, US 952, EP 452, JP 021, EP 408) and directs the parties' attention to specific technical questions requiring focused argument at the hearing.
2025-01-22UPC_CFI_365/2023Mannheim LDInfringement ActionProzessualNur prozessualThe Mannheim Local Division issued a preparatory procedural order ahead of the oral hearing in a patent infringement action brought by Fujifilm against Kodak entities concerning EP 3 511 174. The order set out preliminary views and questions on contested legal and technical points, including cross-border relief for the UK, interpretation of main vs. subsidiary requests, and claim construction, without making any final substantive ruling.
2025-01-10ACT_578697/2023Paris LDGeneric applicationKostenNur KostenParis Local Division issued a costs decision in Hewlett-Packard Development Company LP v LAMA FRANCE (UPC_CFI_358/2023, infringement action concerning EP 2 089 230 and EP 1 737 669). Applying the prior decision of 13 November 2024 (50/50 cost split), the court rejected both parties' requests to raise the 50% ceiling on recoverable representation costs. Each party owes the other EUR 112,000 in representation costs and EUR 7,500 in court fees, resulting in a wash. No ceiling uplift was justified despite the complexity of the double-patent case.
2024-11-22ACT_545551/2023Mannheim LDInfringement ActionVerletzung (Hauptsache)VerletztThe Mannheim Local Division found that Guangdong OPPO and OROPE Germany infringed Panasonic's EP 2 568 724 (radio communication patent), granted injunction, recall and other relief, while dismissing the invalidity counterclaim and the FRAND counterclaim.
2024-11-13UPC_CFI_358/2023Paris LDInfringement ActionVerletzung (Hauptsache)VerletztFinal decision on the merits (in French) in the infringement action by Hewlett-Packard Development Company LP against LAMA France concerning inkjet printer cartridge technology. The Paris Local Division found that LAMA France infringed the patent in suit (a fluid ejection device patent). The court ordered: (I) patent maintained as valid (invalidity counterclaim rejected); (II) injunction against infringing cartridges; (III) corrective measures including recall from distribution channels and destruction of infringing stock; (IV) disclosure of sales information for damages calculation; (V) costs split equally between parties (50/50); provisional damages on costs rejected. Infringement established without requiring prior notice of the patent to the defendant.
Seite 1 von 2 · 62