UPClytics
ENDE
Sign inStart trial
View all cases

CC 17292/2024

Apr 2, 2024·EP3466498 · SEARCH DEVICE FOR AVALANCHE VICTIMS AND METHOD FOR OPERATING A SEARCH DEVICE FOR AVALANCHE VICTIMS

Follow
Case details
Status
Case Closed (Patent upheld as granted)
Action
Counterclaim for revocation
Category
Counterclaim for revocation
Parties
Claimants
Representatives
Respondents
Representatives
Division
Dusseldorf LD
Judges
Technology
  • Other fields
    Consumer products
Language
German
First decided
Jan 14, 2025
How this compares
The court's record for this kind of case, counted in first-instance rulings. A figure in brackets is the number of rulings a rate rests on.
Patent revokedMedian days to first decision
All UPC37% (34/91)124
Dusseldorf LDLockedLocked
Judge Ronny ThomasLockedLocked
Judge Berenice ThomLockedLocked
Judge Walter SchoberLockedLocked
Judge Erwin WismethLockedLocked

At the UPC: Mammut Group (22 cases)·Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH (22 cases)

Start 14-day free trialAlready a user? Sign in
Related cases
All proceedings on this patent

This dispute contains 19 other proceedings

UPC CoA 216/2025·UPC CoA 217/2025·UPC CoA 228/2025·UPC CFI 121/2025·UPC CFI 124/2025 and 14 more

Start a free trial to see how each one ended.

More cases: Dusseldorf LD·2024

Decisions
  • 2025-01-14
    Counterclaim for revocationPublic

    Summary: The Düsseldorf Local Division found that Mammut Sports Group AG and GmbH infringed EP 3 466 498 B1 (owned by Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH, relating to a transceiver device for avalanche rescue) and dismissed the counterclaim for revocation, maintaining the patent. The Court granted an injunction, ordered product recall and removal from distribution channels, ordered disclosure of information and accounting, and awarded EUR 3,000 in provisional damages. Indirect infringement was found because Mammut induced end-users to activate the infringing feature. The Court rejected the request for publication of the decision as Ortovox's interests were sufficiently protected by the injunction. 80% of infringement action costs borne by claimant (Ortovox) and 10% each by defendants; counterclaim costs borne equally by defendants.

    Show the legal issues (6)
    • Direct and indirect patent infringement
    • Activation of patented features by end-users
    • Novelty and inventive step in counterclaim for revocation
    • Corrective measures — destruction, recall, removal from channels
    • Publication of decision under Art. 80 UPCA
    • Provisional damages award
Documents
Show all 247 documents
Document titleDatePublic
Outcome of the Order2025-01-27Not public
Berichtigungsanordnung2025-01-27Public
250123 Stellungnahme re Berichtigungsantrag GGS2025-01-23Not public
Gelegenheit zur Stellungnahme2025-01-22Not public
Receipt2025-01-22Not public
2025-01-21 Berichtigungsantrag Ortovox2025-01-21Not public
Headnote-and-Keywords2025-01-14Not public
DecisionOutcome2025-01-14Not public
Entscheidung2025-01-14Public
Platzhalter - Upload Recording2024-11-28Not public
Plain-English summary

Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH obtained a judgment from the Düsseldorf Local Division finding that Mammut Sports Group AG and GmbH infringed EP 3 466 498 B1, a patent for an avalanche victim search transceiver device, through both direct and indirect infringement — the latter because Mammut guided users to activate the infringing search function in its products. The court dismissed Mammut's counterclaim for revocation, granted injunctive relief including recall and removal from commerce, ordered disclosure and accounting, and awarded EUR 3,000 in provisional damages, but declined to order publication of the judgment as unnecessary given the other remedies.

Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • Direct and indirect infringement of EP 3 466 498 B1 by Mammut Sports Group AG and GmbH

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 25 UPCA; Art. 26 UPCA

    Note: The court found both direct infringement and, critically, indirect infringement because Mammut instructed end-users to activate the infringing feature (a search function in its avalanche transceiver) through product instructions, making Mammut responsible for users' activation.

  • Novelty and inventive step of EP 3 466 498 B1 upheld; counterclaim for revocation dismissed

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 54 EPC; Art. 56 EPC

    Note: The Düsseldorf court dismissed Mammut's revocation counterclaim, maintaining the patent for an avalanche search device.

  • Software-based deactivation is not a sufficient alternative to physical destruction if the product could be re-enabled to an infringing state

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 64 UPCA

    Note: Court held that software deactivation is only acceptable if it ensures the product cannot be restored to an infringing configuration; absent such certainty, destruction is required.

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

  • Publication of the judgment should be ordered

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 80 UPCA

    Reason: Court declined under Art. 80 UPCA because Ortovox's interests were already sufficiently protected by the injunction and other remedies granted; publication requires that the claimant's interest in publication outweighs the consequences for the defendant.

Key legal principles
Doctrines and rules cited in the reasoning.
Indirect infringement arises where the infringer instructs or knowingly exploits the end-user's activation of an infringing featureDestruction required where software-based deactivation cannot guarantee the product cannot be restored to an infringing statePublication of judgment is discretionary (Art. 80 UPCA) and requires claimant's interest to outweigh consequences for defendant; not justified where other remedies already protect claimantProvisional damages may be awarded alongside a declaration of liability for further damages

Browse other cases on this principle.