UPClytics
EnglishDeutsch
Sign inSign up
View all cases

ACT 576606/2023

—·EP2548648: Mill for comminuting of material

Case details
Status
—
Action
Infringement
Category
Main Infringement Action
Parties
Claimants
Reps: Blumenröder
Respondents
Reps: Rüberg
Division
Mannheim LD
Judges
Technology
Industrial Manufacturing · Shredding Machinery
Language
—
First decided
Jan 31, 2025
Claims
At issueall
Revokedall
Notes: Mannheim LD revoked EP2548648 in its entirety (vollumfänglich) for lack of inventive step across 13 UPC member states; infringement action dismissed as a consequence.
Decisions
  • 2025-01-31
    RevokedInfringement meritsInfringement Action

    The Mannheim Local Division revoked EP 2 548 648 (a wood/biomass shredder patent) in its entirety for lack of inventive step across 13 UPC member states, and dismissed the infringement action as a consequence; the claimant Rematec was ordered to bear 75% of costs.

    Legal issues:Patent revocation for lack of inventive stepInfringement dismissed following revocationPrior art analysis (shredder element orientation)
Documents
  • 2E937EEA0EF480BF07F87D4A88515148_de.pdf2025-01-31DE
Coverage: Partial.Reasoning extracted with partial coverage — some sections may be incomplete.
Plain-English summary

Rematec brought an infringement action against Europe Forestry B.V. regarding its wood/biomass shredder patent EP 2 548 648. The Mannheim Local Division found the patent invalid for lack of inventive step over D3 (which prompted the skilled person to address cutting element orientation) combined with D9 (which showed 45-degree oblique ribs in fibrous wood grinding), and revoked it across 13 UPC member states. The infringement action was dismissed as a consequence and Rematec was ordered to bear 75% of costs.

Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • EP 2 548 648 lacks inventive step over D3 combined with D9 for the shredder tooth/cutting element orientation feature (Merkmal 1m)

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 56 EPC

    Note: The Mannheim Local Division found that D3 taught the skilled person that the choice and arrangement of tearing/cutting elements must be coordinated, prompting the skilled person to consult D9, which showed oblique ribs at approximately 45 degrees to the circumferential direction of the rotor in fibrous wood material grinding, corresponding to feature 1m.

Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.

  • Patent EP 2 548 648 is valid and infringement claims should be upheld

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 56 EPC

    Reason: The patent was found invalid for lack of inventive step and revoked in its entirety; infringement action was dismissed as a consequence.

Key legal principles
Doctrines and rules cited in the reasoning.
problem-solution approach for inventive stepmotivation to combine prior art referencesrevocation of patent defeats pending infringement action

Browse other cases on this principle.

Prior art relied on
References cited and the role they played.
  • D3 (unspecified publication, shredder/mill technology)Obviousness combination
  • D9 (unspecified publication, fibrous wood material grinding with oblique ribs/strips)Obviousness combination
Claim construction notes

The court analysed feature 1m of EP 2 548 648 (mill for comminuting material, particularly biomass/wood), which concerns the angular arrangement of tearing and/or cutting elements at the inner wall of the grinding chamber relative to the circumferential direction of the rotor. The court found that D9 discloses oblique strips/ribs at approximately 45 degrees in a fibrous wood material grinder, corresponding to feature 1m.