UPClytics
ENDE
Sign inStart trial
View all cases

UPC CFI 106/2025

Feb 28, 2025·EP3156843 · DEVICE AND METHOD FOR THREE-DIMENSIONAL RECONSTRUCTION OF THE HEAD AND BODY

Follow
Case details
Status
Case Closed (Patent upheld as granted)
Action
Counterclaim for revocation
Category
Counterclaim for revocation
Parties
Claimants
Representatives
Division
Dusseldorf LD
Judges
Technology
  • Instruments
    Optics
Language
German
First decided
Apr 23, 2026
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 Jule SchumacherLockedLocked
Judge Peter AgergaardLockedLocked
Judge Stefan WilhelmLockedLocked

At the UPC: Canfield Scientific GmbH (4 cases)·QUANTIFICARE S.A. (5 cases)

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

This dispute contains 3 other proceedings

UPC CoA 110/2026·UPC CoA 99/2026·UPC CFI 559/2024

1 other defendants litigating the same or a related patent

UPC CFI 3035/2026

Start a free trial to see how each one ended.

More cases: Dusseldorf LD·2025

Decisions
  • 2026-04-23
    Counterclaim for revocationPublic

    Summary: The UPC Local Division Düsseldorf found that EP 3 156 843 (a stereophotogrammetry device and method for 3D body reconstruction) was directly infringed by the respondents' Canfield Vectra H2 imaging system in Belgium, France, Italy, and the Netherlands. The court granted an injunction, recall, removal from distribution channels, disclosure of information, provisional damages of EUR 20,000, and a declaration of liability for further damages, while dismissing the defendants' counterclaim for revocation in its entirety.

    Show the legal issues (11)
    • Infringement of claims 1 and 14 of EP 3 156 843 by Canfield Vectra H2 stereophotogrammetry system
    • Territorial scope of UPC injunction under Art. 34 UPCA including 'carve out' of Germany due to parallel German proceedings
    • Claim construction: whether dual optics require two separate optical systems without moving parts
    • Claim construction: whether the signalling of target distance requires two temporally separate steps
    • Validity of EP 3 156 843: lack of inventive step counterclaim by respondents
    • Standing/passive legitimation of Defendant 1 (German subsidiary) for acts in other contracting member states
    • Limitation/prescription under Art. 72 UPCA for damages and ancillary claims
    • Provisional damages under R. 119 RoP
    • Provisional reimbursement of costs under R. 150.2 RoP
    • Security for enforcement under Art. 82(2) UPCA
    • Confidentiality order as condition precedent to disclosure obligation
Documents
Show all 126 documents
Document titleDatePublic
Receipt2026-06-23Not public
Cover sheet2026-06-23Not public
Document Claimant2026-06-23Not public
Receipt2026-05-18Not public
Cover sheet2026-05-18Not public
Exhibit Applicant2026-05-18Not public
Application document Applicant2026-05-18Not public
Case closed2026-04-23Not public
Decision2026-04-23Not public
Decision2026-04-23Public
Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • An infringing act established in one Contracting Member State (Germany, even under a procedural 'carve out') is sufficient to issue an injunction covering all Contracting Member States where the patent is in force under Art. 34 UPCA

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 34 UPCA

  • The dual optics feature of claim 1 does not require two separate optical systems without moving parts; the patent's teaching exploits depth of field and claim 1 does not exclude moving parts

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 69 EPC / claim construction principles

  • Convergence of light beams at the target distance constitutes the required 'signalling' under claim 1 without a temporally separate second step

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 69 EPC / claim construction

  • Infringement of claims 1 and 14 by Canfield Vectra H2, including use of the method in clinical study support and training

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 25(a) and 25(b) UPCA

  • No prescription under Art. 72 UPCA because claimant only acquired knowledge of infringing acts in July/August 2020 (when infringement analysis and warning letter were issued)

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 72 UPCA

  • Provisional damages of EUR 20,000 are warranted under R. 119 RoP to cover anticipated costs of the quantum proceedings

    ClaimantLegal basis: R. 119 RoP; Art. 68 UPCA

  • Provisional cost reimbursement of EUR 90,000 for the counterclaim for revocation is justified at 50% of the reimbursement ceiling

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 69(1) UPCA; R. 150.2 RoP
Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.

  • Lack of inventive step of EP 3 156 843 based on multiple prior art combinations including Wolf 'Elements of Photogrammetry', VECTRA H1 User Guide, WO 2010/012722, WO 2010/097572, and related art

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 138(1)(a) EPC; Art. 65 UPCA

  • Claim 1 requires dual optics without moving parts and with two fully separate optical systems

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 69 EPC / claim construction

  • Signalling must be a distinct temporally separate step following establishment of target distance

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 69 EPC / claim construction

  • Claimant lacked passive standing against Defendant 1 for acts in non-German contracting member states because only German infringement was alleged and Germany was carved out

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 34 UPCA

  • Injunction should be territorially limited per defendant to countries where that defendant's infringing acts were individually proven

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 34 UPCA; UPC_CFI_440/2023

  • Claims for damages and ancillary relief accruing before 26 September 2019 are time-barred under Art. 72 UPCA

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 72 UPCA

  • Enforcement should be stayed pending provision of a bank guarantee of EUR 1,800,000 due to catastrophic potential harm to respondents

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 82(2) UPCA; R. 352.1 RoP

  • Disclosure obligation should be subject to a confidentiality order restricting access to claimant's legal representatives and one non-sales employee

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 67 UPCA

  • Three US family patents were held invalid by the PTAB in IPR proceedings on substantially the same prior art, indicating the patent lacks inventive step

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 138(1)(a) EPC