- Case details
- StatusPatent upheld as grantedActionCounterclaim for revocationCategoryCounterclaim for revocation
- Parties
- Claimants
- Windhager GmbHOperating co.
- Johann WindhagerIndividual
- Stefan WindhagerIndividual
Representatives- Matthias Geitz-LS-MP von Puttkammer Berngruber Loth Spuhler
- Division
- Mannheim LD
- Technology
- Mechanical engineeringOther special machines
- Language
- —
- First decided
- Sep 12, 2025
| Patent revoked | Median days to first decision | |
|---|---|---|
| All UPC | 37% (34/91) | 124 |
| Mannheim LD | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Peter Tochtermann | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Dirk Böttcher | Locked | Locked |
| Judge András Kupecz | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Max Tilmann | Locked | Locked |
At the UPC: Windhager GmbH (1 case)·bellissa HAAS GmbH (8 cases)
6 other defendants litigating the same or a related patent
UPC CFI 3360/2026·UPC CoA 894/2025·UPC CFI 1187/2025·UPC CFI 860/2025·UPC CFI 778/2024 and 1 more
Start a free trial to see how each one ended.
More cases: Mannheim LD·2024
- 2025-09-12Counterclaim for revocationPublic
Summary: Decision of the Mannheim Local Division finding infringement of EP 2 223 589 by Windhager GmbH (defendant 1) in Germany, Austria and Luxembourg, ordering an injunction, recall, removal from distribution channels, destruction of infringing products, information disclosure, and a declaration of damages liability. The revocation counterclaim was dismissed. Defendants bear costs. The decision establishes that supplying or offering all components of a patented product designed to be assembled without additional items at the point of use constitutes direct infringement under Art. 25(a) UPCA, and that selling even a single component of such a product when assembly is indicated also constitutes direct infringement.
Show the legal issues (4)
- Direct infringement Art. 25(a) UPCA
- Indirect infringement
- Supplying components designed for assembly
- Distinguishing direct and indirect infringement
- 5301DE6719BB3EFA2BB3F235E9225C8D_de.pdf2025-09-12DE
Bellissa HAAS GmbH sued Windhager GmbH and two of its directors before the Mannheim Local Division for infringement of EP 2 223 589 B1, covering a garden bed enclosure with a lockable sheet metal strip. The court found direct infringement by Windhager GmbH under Art. 25(a) UPCA, adopting the principle that supplying all components of a product designed for simple self-assembly constitutes direct infringement, and that even selling a single such component where assembly is indicated is direct infringement. The revocation counterclaim was dismissed and injunction, recall, destruction, and damages were ordered against Windhager GmbH.
Supplying or offering all components of a patented product designed to be assembled at point of use without additional items constitutes direct infringement under Art. 25(a) UPCA
ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 25(a) UPCANote: Mannheim Local Division accepted that the supply of all sheet metal strip components together, designed for easy assembly, is direct infringement regardless of whether assembly occurs at the supplier's or customer's premises.
Selling even a single component of a patented product constitutes direct infringement where the product comprises at least two identical coordinated components and assembly is indicated or obvious
ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 25(a) UPCANote: Court accepted this broader principle for products composed of multiple identical components designed to be combined.
Infringement of EP 2 223 589 B1 (bed enclosure with lockable sheet metal strip) by Windhager GmbH in Germany, Austria and Luxembourg
ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 25(a) UPCANote: Injunction, recall, removal, destruction, information disclosure and damages declaration granted against Windhager GmbH (defendant 1); individual defendants 2 and 3 (directors) not held personally liable for costs.
Revocation counterclaim against EP 2 223 589 B1 (bed enclosure with lockable sheet metal strip)
RespondentReason: Dismissed; patent maintained as granted.
Personal liability of individual directors (Johann and Stefan Windhager) for costs beyond Windhager GmbH's liability
ClaimantReason: Court found no indication that costs incurred by the individual director-defendants would not be borne by Windhager GmbH as their employer; individual directors' costs were subsumed within Windhager GmbH's costs obligation.
Browse other cases on this principle.
EP 2 223 589 B1 covers a bed enclosure for garden beds consisting of at least two sheet metal strips that are connectable at their ends using a tongue-and-slot locking mechanism that is pushed on vertically. The key claim construction question was whether the supply of components (metal strips) in their designed-for-assembly form already falls within the scope of Art. 25(a) UPCA direct infringement or only within Art. 26 UPCA indirect infringement. The court held that where the product is specifically designed so that all its components can be assembled simply at the point of use without additional items, supply of all components already constitutes direct infringement.