- Case details
- StatusCase Closed (Patent infringed)Set aside on appeal, May 27, 2026ActionInfringementCategoryMain infringement action
- Parties
- Claimants
- Grundfos Holding A/SOperating co.
Representatives- Markus Bölling-Mitscherlich Patent- und Rechtsanwälte
- Christian Ruppsupporting-Mitscherlich Patent- und Rechtsanwälte
- Alexander Bachsupporting-Mitscherlich Patent- und Rechtsanwälte
Respondents- Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd.Operating co.
Representatives- Nicola Busch-Grünecker Patent- und Rechtsanwälte PartGmbH
- Michael Rüberg-Boehmert & Boehmert
- Oliver Tavenkorn-Boehmert & Boehmert
- Michael (surname Not Fully Stated In Excerpt)
- Ulrich Blumenröder-Grünecker Patent- und Rechtsanwälte PartGmbH
- Stumvoll-Grünecker Patent- und Rechtsanwälte PartGmbH
- Division
- Dusseldorf LD
- Technology
- Mechanical engineeringEngines, pumps, turbines
- Language
- German
- First decided
- May 8, 2025
- Last decision
- Sep 4, 2026
- Appealed
- Set aside by UPC CoA 622/2025 · May 27, 2026
- Set aside by UPC CoA 623/2025 · May 27, 2026
| Infringement found | Median days to first decision | |
|---|---|---|
| All UPC | 53% (62/117) | 124 |
| Dusseldorf LD | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Ronny Thomas | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Berenice Thom | Locked | Locked |
| Judge András Kupecz | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Merja Heikkinen-Keinänen | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Ulrike Voß | Locked | Locked |
At the UPC: Grundfos Holding A/S (7 cases)·Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd. (6 cases)
This dispute contains 5 other proceedings
UPC CoA 622/2025·UPC CoA 623/2025·UPC CFI 426/2025·CC 26515/2024·UPC APP 8530/2025
1 other defendants litigating the same or a related patent
Start a free trial to see how each one ended.
More cases: Dusseldorf LD·2024
- 2026-09-04InfringementPublic
Summary: Düsseldorf Local Division order (Panel 1, 4 Sep 2026) in Grundfos Holding A/S v Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd. (EP 2 778 423 B1): the EUR 150,000 security for the costs of the appeal proceedings UPC_CoA_622/2025 and 623/2025 (2 x EUR 75,000, ordered by the Court of Appeal on 19 Dec 2025 and deposited by the defendant) is released by analogy to R. 352.2 RoP, after the defendant paid the EUR 38,230.10 fixed in the costs decision of 7 Aug 2026 (App_2262/2026) and the claimant consented. The order also records that the Court of Appeal had set aside the 8 May 2025 first-instance decision, revoked claims 1-3, 5 and 11 in part and dismissed the infringement action.
Show the legal issues (2)
- R. 352.2 RoP applied by analogy to release a security for costs once the costs order is satisfied
- security for appeal costs ordered by the Court of Appeal (UPC_CoA_622/2025, 623/2025)
- 2025-05-27
Summary: The Düsseldorf Local Division issued a rectification order (R. 353 RoP) correcting obvious errors in the operative part of the decision issued on 8 May 2025 in the infringement action by Grundfos Holding A/S against Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd. concerning EP 2 778 423 B1. The corrections addressed typographical cross-referencing errors in the accounting and rendering of accounts obligations. The defendant did not oppose the rectification.
Show the legal issues (2)
- Rectification of decision (R. 353 RoP)
- Correction of obvious errors in operative part
- 2025-05-08Infringement ActionPublic
Summary: Düsseldorf Local Division final decision in infringement action (with revocation counterclaim) concerning a pump patent (EP 2 778 423 B1), by Grundfos against a Chinese manufacturer (Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump). The court found infringement, granted an injunction, ordered accounting/information, recall from distribution channels, and declared liability for damages from 28 February 2018. The revocation counterclaim was dismissed. Defendant bears all costs. The court addressed the admissibility of new prior art raised for the first time in the defendant's rejoinder to the revocation counterclaim, holding that such new attacks require a convincing explanation of why they could not have been included earlier.
Show the legal issues (5)
- Patent infringement
- Revocation counterclaim dismissed
- New prior art in rejoinder (R. 263 RoP)
- Admissibility of late prior art attacks
- Pump technology
- 2024-09-13
Summary: Early procedural order by Düsseldorf Local Division in Grundfos v Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump deciding under R. 37.2 RoP to proceed jointly with infringement action and counterclaim for revocation under Art. 33(3)(a) UPCA. The decision was taken early to allow timely assignment of the technically qualified judge given part-time panel staffing constraints.
Show the legal issues (1)
- Early decision on joint handling of infringement and revocation under Art. 33(3)(a) UPCA / R. 37.2 RoP
| Document title | Date | Public |
|---|---|---|
| Publication of order | 2026-09-04 | Not public |
| Order | 2026-09-04 | Not public |
| Order | 2026-09-04 | Public |
| Receipt | 2026-09-03 | Not public |
| Cover sheet | 2026-09-03 | Not public |
| Application document Claimant | 2026-09-03 | Not public |
| Communication | 2026-08-28 | Not public |
| Receipt | 2026-08-28 | Not public |
| Cover sheet | 2026-08-28 | Not public |
| Document Defendant | 2026-08-28 | Not public |
Grundfos Holding A/S brought an infringement action against Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co. Ltd. at the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning EP 2 778 423 B1, a centrifugal pump patent. The court found infringement and dismissed the revocation counterclaim, granting an injunction, accounting, recall, and damages from 28 February 2018. A notable procedural ruling held that new prior art or new invalidity attacks first raised in the rejoinder to the revocation counterclaim constitute an expansion of the counterclaim under R. 263 RoP and are admitted only if the defendant shows due diligence and absence of undue prejudice to the claimant.
New prior art introduced in defendant's rejoinder to revocation counterclaim constitutes an expansion requiring convincing justification for late filing
ClaimantLegal basis: Rule 263 RoPNote: Düsseldorf LD held that new prior art in the rejoinder to the revocation counterclaim is an expansion of the counterclaim; admission requires the defendant to convince the court the documents could not have been filed with the original counterclaim and that admission would not unduly prejudice the claimant.
Same rule applies when already-filed prior art is first used for a new invalidity attack only in the rejoinder
ClaimantLegal basis: Rule 263 RoPNote: Court extended the same diligence-and-prejudice test to situations where a prior-art document already in the file is first deployed for a new novelty/inventive-step attack in the rejoinder.
New prior art and new invalidity attacks raised for the first time in the rejoinder to revocation counterclaim
RespondentLegal basis: Rule 263 RoPReason: Defendant failed to convince the court that due diligence precluded earlier filing of these prior-art attacks; the new material was not admitted.
Browse other cases on this principle.