UPClytics
EnglishDeutsch
Sign inSign up
View all cases

ACT 590302/2023

—·EP2011218: BOOST POWER FACTOR CORRECTION CIRCUIT (BOOST PFC)

Case details
Status
—
Action
Infringement
Category
Main Infringement Action
Parties
Claimants
Reps: Markus B. Bölling (Mitscherlich Patent- und Rechtsanwälte); Christian Kraeh (Mitscherlich Patent- und Rechtsanwälte)
Respondents
Reps: Eva Geschke (Wildanger Kehrwald Graf von Schwerin & Partner mbB); Jan-Caspar Maiers (Wildanger Kehrwald Graf von Schwerin & Partner mbB)
Division
Dusseldorf LD
Judges
Technology
Semiconductors · Power Semis · Power Generation
Language
—
First decided
Mar 7, 2025
Claims
At issueall
Maintainedall
Not infringedall
Notes: Düsseldorf Local Division dismissed infringement of EP 2 011 218 B1 (feature 7.4 of the main claim not met); product claim (Anspruch 6) also not infringed for same reasons; revocation counterclaim dismissed, patent maintained.
Decisions
  • 2025-03-07
    Not infringedInfringement meritsInfringement Action

    Düsseldorf Local Division full merits judgment in an infringement action by Tridonic GmbH & Co KG against CUPOWER entities concerning EP 2 011 218 B1 (a patent relating to LED driver/control circuits). The court dismissed the infringement action in its entirety, finding that the accused LED power supply products do not fulfil feature 7.4 of the patent (decoupling element) because the capacitor C3 in the defendants' design does not achieve the complete electrical separation required by the claim – it remains continuously connected to the control unit regardless of switch state. The defendants' counterclaim for revocation was also dismissed (patent maintained). Costs were split: claimant bears costs of the infringement action; defendants bear costs of the revocation counterclaim equally.

    Legal issues:Non-infringement of apparatus claim (feature 7.4 – decoupling element)Claim construction – meaning of 'Entkoppelung' (complete electrical separation)Late submissions during oral hearingJoint handling of infringement and revocation counterclaimCost allocation between infringement action and counterclaim
Documents
  • 83C9C05D2C719D67DCD568B60F22B8AB_de.pdf2025-03-07DE
Plain-English summary

Tridonic GmbH & Co KG sued CUPOWER entities in the Düsseldorf Local Division for infringement of EP 2 011 218 B1, a Boost Power Factor Correction Circuit patent for LED drivers. The court dismissed the infringement action after finding that the accused products' capacitor C3 did not achieve the 'complete electrical separation' required by feature 7.4 (decoupling element), while simultaneously dismissing the defendants' revocation counterclaim. Costs of the infringement action were awarded to defendants; costs of the revocation counterclaim were awarded to claimant.

Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • Accused products do not fulfil feature 7.4 (decoupling element) of EP 2 011 218

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 69 EPC (claim construction); Art. 25 UPCA

    Note: The Düsseldorf Local Division held that the capacitor C3 in defendants' LED power supply design does not achieve the complete electrical separation required by the patent's 'decoupling element'; it remains continuously connected to the control unit regardless of switch state, so only one signal at one pin of the control unit is not achieved as required.

  • New invalidity attacks raised for the first time at oral hearing are inadmissible due to front-loaded UPC procedure

    ClaimantLegal basis: Preamble 7 RoP; R. 55 RoP

    Note: The court refused to consider new invalidity attacks raised strategically at oral hearing for surprise effect, finding this incompatible with the UPC's procedure against strategic surprise tactics.

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

  • Defendants' LED power supply products infringe EP 2 011 218 B1

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 69 EPC; Art. 25 UPCA

    Reason: The court found that the accused products do not realise feature 7.4 of the patent — the decoupling element — because capacitor C3 does not achieve complete electrical separation between the switch signal and the control unit; both measurement circuits remain continuously connected to the control unit pin, so the patent's requirement of only one current signal arriving at one pin is not met.

  • Patent EP 2 011 218 is invalid (counterclaim for revocation)

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 65 UPCA

    Reason: The revocation counterclaim was dismissed; the patent was maintained as valid.

Key legal principles
Doctrines and rules cited in the reasoning.
purposive claim construction of 'decoupling element'front-loaded proceedings prohibit strategic new attacks at oral hearingcosts follow the event per Art. 69(1) UPCA; split where each party succeeds on part

Browse other cases on this principle.

Claim construction notes

The court construed 'decoupling element' in feature 7.4 of EP 2 011 218 as requiring complete electrical separation, such that only one current signal at a time arrives at one pin of the control unit. The accused design's capacitor C3 does not achieve this because it responds to any voltage change across the switch — whether open or closed — and thereby applies a voltage level through the signal path in both states, meaning both measurement circuits remain continuously connected to the control unit pin simultaneously.