UPC Analytics
ENDE
Overview · Filed: —

ACT_583273/2023

InfringementMain Infringement ActionMunich LDInfringement Action—
OverviewDecisionsReasoningCitationsDocumentsTimeline
Plain-English summary

Koninklijke Philips N.V. obtained a merits judgment against Belkin GmbH, Belkin International Inc., and Belkin Limited at the Munich Local Division for infringement of EP 2 867 997 B1 (wireless power transfer technology). The court upheld the patent against revocation counterclaims and granted an injunction, recall, information order, and EUR 119,000 interim damages for acts outside Germany (German acts excluded due to opt-out). Orders were also issued against Belkin's corporate officers as intermediaries under Art. 63(1)(2) UPCA. Late-filed prior art document D7 was excluded from the proceedings.

Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • Protection sought from description and drawings can only be claim subject-matter if expressed in the claim

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 69 EPC

    Note: Munich LD confirmed that scope of protection is determined by claim language; broader description content does not expand the claim.

  • Where description presents multiple embodiments as belonging to the invention, claim terms must be understood broadly enough to encompass all embodiments

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 69 EPC

    Note: Court held that if multiple embodiments are presented as inventive, terms in the claim must be interpreted to cover all of them.

  • Infringer is the party who acts as manufacturer/offeror or who creates the impression for the relevant market that it manufactures/distributes goods in its own name and for its own account

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 25 UPCA

    Note: Court applied this test to identify liable Belkin entities as direct infringers.

  • Order against corporate officers (as intermediaries) available where company infringes

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 63(1)(2) UPCA

    Note: Court issued orders against Belkin GmbH's CEO and Belkin Limited's directors in their capacity as intermediaries.

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

  • D7 (new prior art) submitted with written submission of 15 March 2024 admitted to revocation proceedings

    Respondent

    Reason: D7 and related submissions were not admitted into the proceedings.

  • Revocation counterclaims — patent invalid

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 138 EPC

    Reason: Revocation counterclaims dismissed in their entirety.

Key legal principles
Doctrines and rules cited in the reasoning.
Claim scope determined by claim language — description broadens interpretation only where claim text reflects itWhere multiple embodiments presented as inventive, claim terms interpreted to cover all of themInfringer identification: party acting as manufacturer/offeror or creating that market impressionOrders against corporate officers as intermediaries available under Art. 63(1)(2) UPCAGerman territorial acts excluded from UPC injunction where opt-out/national proceedings apply

Browse other cases on this principle.

Prior art relied on
References cited and the role they played.
  • D7 (unspecified late-filed document)Obviousness combination
Claim construction notes

The Munich LD applied Art. 69 EPC claim construction: protection extends only to what is expressed in the claim; description and drawings inform but do not expand claim scope. Where the description presents multiple embodiments as inventive, claim terms are interpreted in the widest sense consistent with covering all such embodiments. The infringement finding covered Belkin's wireless power transfer products outside Germany (German acts carved out). Belkin's corporate officers were ordered as intermediaries.