UPC Analytics
ENDE
Overview · Filed: —

CC_65106/2024

Beet enclosure with a lockable sheet metal strip

Parent infringement case:UPC_CFI_338/2024

RevocationCounter Claim for RevocationMannheim LDCounterclaim for revocation—
OverviewDecisionsReasoningCitationsDocumentsTimeline
Plain-English summary

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.

Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • 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) UPCA

    Note: 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) UPCA

    Note: 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) UPCA

    Note: 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.

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

  • Revocation counterclaim against EP 2 223 589 B1 (bed enclosure with lockable sheet metal strip)

    Respondent

    Reason: Dismissed; patent maintained as granted.

  • Personal liability of individual directors (Johann and Stefan Windhager) for costs beyond Windhager GmbH's liability

    Claimant

    Reason: 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.

Key legal principles
Doctrines and rules cited in the reasoning.
Direct infringement under Art. 25(a) UPCA — supply of all components designed for simple assembly at point of useDirect infringement — sale of a single component of a multi-component product where assembly is indicated or obviousDistinction between direct and indirect infringement in component supply scenariosCosts allocation for director-defendants sued in their capacity as directors

Browse other cases on this principle.

Claim construction notes

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.