ACT_2379/2024

SEARCH DEVICE FOR AVALANCHE VICTIMS AND METHOD FOR OPERATING A SEARCH DEVICE FOR AVALANCHE VICTIMS

InfringementMain Infringement ActionDusseldorf LDInfringement Action—

Overview Decisions Reasoning Citations Documents Timeline

Coverage: Partial.Reasoning extracted with partial coverage — some sections may be incomplete.

Plain-English summary

Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH sued Mammut Sports Group AG and GmbH before the Düsseldorf Local Division for infringement of EP 3 466 498 B1, a patent for an avalanche search transceiver. The court found both direct and indirect infringement (including through customer-activated functions), granted a permanent injunction, ordered recall and removal from distribution channels, and declared Mammut's liability for damages (with EUR 3,000 preliminary award). The revocation counterclaim was dismissed and costs were split with claimant bearing 80% of infringement action costs and defendants bearing costs of the revocation counterclaim.

Accepted arguments

What the court agreed with — by party.

Direct and indirect infringement established: defendant must bear responsibility for customer activation of infringing functions where it instructs customers to activate and knowingly exploits such activation
ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 25, 26 UPCA
Note: The Düsseldorf Local Division held that where a device in its offered state requires customer activation of certain functions to realise all patent claim features, the infringer is liable where it instructs or knowingly exploits such activation; both direct and indirect infringement were established.
Destruction ordered rather than software deactivation; deactivation only acceptable if re-enabling to infringing state is impossible
ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 64 UPCA
Note: The court ordered destruction unless software deactivation would reliably and permanently prevent the device from being re-enabled in an infringing state.
Publication of decision not warranted where claimant's protection already addressed by other measures
RespondentLegal basis: Art. 80 UPCA
Note: The court exercised its discretion under Art. 80 UPCA and declined to order publication, finding that the claimant's interests were already adequately addressed by the injunction and other corrective measures.

Rejected arguments

What the court did not agree with — and why.

Patent EP 3 466 498 is invalid (counterclaim for revocation) — novelty and inventive step
RespondentLegal basis: Art. 65 UPCA; Art. 54, 56 EPC
Reason: The revocation counterclaim was dismissed; the court found the patent valid, upholding novelty and inventive step.

Key legal principles

Doctrines and rules cited in the reasoning.

direct and indirect infringement where customer activation of infringing features is instructed or knowingly exploited destruction as corrective measure; software deactivation insufficient unless re-enabling impossible discretion to order publication of decision under Art. 80 UPCA; normally only where other measures insufficient costs apportionment in proceedings with partial success on both sides

Browse other cases on this principle.

Claim construction notes

The key claim construction issue concerned whether the accused avalanche transceiver in its offered state realised all features of the patent claim. The court held that where customer activation of certain functions is needed, liability attaches when the defendant instructs or knowingly exploits such activation, bridging the gap between the device as offered and the claimed device as fully realised.