CC_17292/2024

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

Parent infringement case:UPC_CFI_16/2024

RevocationCounter Claim for RevocationDusseldorf LDCounter claim for revocationCase Closed

Overview Decisions Reasoning Citations Documents Timeline

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 feature Destruction required where software-based deactivation cannot guarantee the product cannot be restored to an infringing state Publication of judgment is discretionary (Art. 80 UPCA) and requires claimant's interest to outweigh consequences for defendant; not justified where other remedies already protect claimant Provisional damages may be awarded alongside a declaration of liability for further damages

Browse other cases on this principle.