UPClytics
ENDE
Sign inStart trial
View all cases

UPC CFI 11/2024

Jan 16, 2024·EP2778423 · Centrifugal pump assembly

Action number: ACT 2097/2024

Follow
Case details
Status
Case Closed (Patent infringed)Set aside on appeal, May 27, 2026
Action
Infringement
Category
Main infringement action
Parties
Claimants
Representatives
Respondents
Representatives
Division
Dusseldorf LD
Judges
Technology
  • Mechanical engineering
    Engines, pumps, turbines
Language
German
First decided
May 8, 2025
Last decision
Sep 4, 2026
Appealed
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.
Infringement foundMedian days to first decision
All UPC53% (62/117)124
Dusseldorf LDLockedLocked
Judge Ronny ThomasLockedLocked
Judge Berenice ThomLockedLocked
Judge András KupeczLockedLocked
Judge Merja Heikkinen-KeinänenLockedLocked
Judge Ulrike VoßLockedLocked

At the UPC: Grundfos Holding A/S (7 cases)·Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd. (6 cases)

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

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

UPC CFI 835/2025

Start a free trial to see how each one ended.

More cases: Dusseldorf LD·2024

Decisions
  • 2026-09-04
    InfringementPublic

    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
    Public

    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
  • 2025-05-08
    Infringement 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
    Public

    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
Documents
Document titleDatePublic
Publication of order2026-09-04Not public
Order2026-09-04Not public
Order2026-09-04Public
Receipt2026-09-03Not public
Cover sheet2026-09-03Not public
Application document Claimant2026-09-03Not public
Communication2026-08-28Not public
Receipt2026-08-28Not public
Cover sheet2026-08-28Not public
Document Defendant2026-08-28Not public
Document Defendant2026-08-28Not public
Receipt2026-06-26Not public
Cover sheet2026-06-26Not public
Exhibit Applicant2026-06-26Not public
Exhibit Applicant2026-06-26Not public
Exhibit Applicant2026-06-26Not public
Exhibit Applicant2026-06-26Not public
Exhibit Applicant2026-06-26Not public
Exhibit Applicant2026-06-26Not public
Exhibit Applicant2026-06-26Not public
Exhibit Applicant2026-06-26Not public
Exhibit Applicant2026-06-26Not public
Exhibit Applicant2026-06-26Not public
Exhibit Applicant2026-06-26Not public
Exhibit Applicant2026-06-26Not public
Application document Applicant2026-06-26Not public
Acknowledgement-of-change-of-a-representative2025-07-02Not public
Application-RoP293-Receipt2025-07-02Not public
Formal-checks_Notification-of-positive-outcome2025-07-02Not public
Application-RoP2932025-07-02Not public
Anzeige Vertreterwechsel2025-07-02Not public
Vollmacht2025-07-02Not public
Receipt2025-06-16Not public
Anlage A12025-06-16Not public
Anlage A32025-06-16Not public
Anlage A52025-06-16Not public
Anlage A22025-06-16Not public
Mitteilung_der_Vollstreckungsabsicht2025-06-16Not public
Anlage A62025-06-16Not public
Anlage A42025-06-16Not public
Headnote-and-Keywords2025-05-27Not public
Outcome of the Order2025-05-27Not public
Berichtigung der Entscheidung2025-05-27Public
Gelegenheit zur Stellungnahme2025-05-14Not public
Gelegenheit zur Stellungnahme2025-05-14Not public
Receipt2025-05-14Not public
Antrag auf Entscheidungsberichtigung2025-05-14Not public
Headnote-and-Keywords2025-05-08Not public
DecisionOutcome2025-05-08Not public
Entscheidung2025-05-08Public
2097-2024/OH/DUS-LOC/UPC202503270930AM/S012025-03-31Not public
2097-2024/OH/DUS-LOC/UPC202503270930AM/S012025-03-31Not public
Interim-Procedure-Closure2025-03-25Not public
Summon-Oral-Hearing2025-03-25Not public
Ladung R. 108 VerfO2025-03-25Public
Hearing-Dates2025-03-25Not public
2025-03-24_Stellungnahme zur VerfO v 17.03.2025_H34436-ST H40238EP-ST_signed2025-03-24Not public
3. AZ Shinhoo vs Grundfos - Praesentationsfolien fuer muendliche Verhandlung - D62025-03-24Not public
2. AZ Shinhoo vs Grundfos - Praesentationsfolien fuer muendliche Verhandlung - D52025-03-24Not public
1. AZ Shinhoo vs Grundfos - Praesentationsfolien fuer muendliche Verhandlung - CN Entscheidung2025-03-24Not public
Stellungnahme zu Verfahrensanordnung2025-03-24Not public
Anordnung im Zwischenverfahren2025-03-17Public
Receipt2025-03-07Not public
CC_26515_2024_Begleitschreiben_R._9_RoP_H40238EP-ST2025-03-07Not public
D 222025-03-07Not public
R. 35 VerfO - Abschluss schriftliches Verfahren2025-02-16Public
Written-Procedure-Closure2025-02-16Not public
Hearing-Dates2025-01-24Not public
Ladung zur mündlichen Verhandlung R. 108 VerfO2025-01-24Public
Duplik zu Nichtigkeitswiderklage2024-10-18Not public
Anordnung zum weiteren Vorgehen2024-09-24Not public
Anordnung zum weiteren Vorgehen2024-09-24Not public
Template-Order2024-09-24Not public
Receipt2024-09-24Not public
Receipt2024-09-24Not public
ACT_42836_2024_Erwiderung_auf_Aenderungsantrag_23092024_H34436_ST_AAE_signed2024-09-23Not public
D162024-09-23Not public
D202024-09-23Not public
D192024-09-23Not public
D182024-09-23Not public
D152024-09-23Not public
CC_26515_2024_Counterclaim_for_revocation_23092024_H40238EP_ST2024-09-23Not public
D172024-09-23Not public
Acknowledgement-of-lodging2024-09-23Not public
ACT_2097_2024_Duplik_v_23_09_2024_H34436_ST2024-09-23Not public
BB11a2024-09-23Not public
BB102024-09-23Not public
BB1b2024-09-23Not public
Hearing-Dates2024-09-23Not public
Bestimmung Termin zur mündlichen Verhandlung2024-09-23Public
Panel-Appointment2024-09-23Not public
Headnote-and-Keywords2024-09-16Not public
Anordnung Art. 33.3 (a) EPGÜ i.V.m. R. 37.2 VerfO2024-09-16Public
Anordnung Art. 33.3 (a) EPGÜ i.V.m. R. 37.2 VerfO2024-09-16Not public
ACT_2097_2024_Stellungnahme wg Termin gem Order v 09.09.20242024-09-13Not public
ORD_50641_2024_Stellungnahme wg Art. 33 Abs. 3 EPGUE gem Order v 06.09.20242024-09-13Not public
Zustimmung zum Verhandlungstermin2024-09-09Not public
Zustimmung zur Verfahrensfuehrung2024-09-09Not public
R. 28 VerfO - Anhörung Termin zur mündlichen Verhandlung2024-09-09Not public
Hearing-Dates2024-09-09Not public
Möglichkeit zur Stellungnahme R. 37.2 VerfO2024-09-06Not public
Template-Order2024-09-06Not public
Receipt2024-07-22Not public
Acknowledgement-of-lodging2024-07-22Not public
Anlage K102024-07-22Not public
Anlage K132024-07-22Not public
Anlage K112024-07-22Not public
Anlage K142024-07-22Not public
Anlage K122024-07-22Not public
Replik2024-07-22Not public
Anlage K92024-07-22Not public
Anlage K142024-07-22Not public
Anlage B12024-07-22Not public
Antrag auf Aenderung des Patents2024-07-22Not public
Anlage B22024-07-22Not public
Outcome of the Order2024-05-24Not public
Fristverlängerung2024-05-24Public
Receipt2024-05-24Not public
Fristverlaengerungsantrag2024-05-24Not public
Formal-checks_Notification-of-positive-outcome2024-05-21Not public
Acknowledgement-of-lodging2024-05-17Not public
Anlage BB42024-05-17Not public
Anlage BB52024-05-17Not public
Anlage BB62024-05-17Not public
Anlage BB22024-05-17Not public
Anlage BB9a2024-05-17Not public
Anlage BB12024-05-17Not public
Anlage BB32024-05-17Not public
Anlage BB9b2024-05-17Not public
Anlage BB72024-05-17Not public
Anlage BB82024-05-17Not public
H34436-ST_ACT_2097_2024_Klageerwiderung2024-05-17Not public
Acknowledgement of access to case2024-05-10Not public
Notification Of Service2024-02-28Not public
Zustelldaten2024-02-28Not public
Outcome of the Order2024-02-09Not public
Bestimmung der Zustelladresse2024-02-09Public
Receipt2024-02-09Not public
Anlage K82024-02-09Not public
Antrag_Regel_92024-02-09Not public
epoUploadDocumentsWorkflow2024-01-19Not public
Document from EPO2024-01-19Not public
Letter for Service2024-01-17Not public
Panel-Appointment2024-01-17Not public
EPO-Request-for-case-pending2024-01-17Not public
Receipt2024-01-17Not public
Formal-checks_Notification-of-positive-outcome2024-01-17Not public
Acknowledgement-of-lodging2024-01-15Not public
Anlage K52024-01-15Not public
Anlage K12024-01-15Not public
Klageschrift2024-01-15Not public
Anlage K72024-01-15Not public
Anlage K62024-01-15Not public
Anlage K22024-01-15Not public
Anlage K72024-01-15Not public
Anlage K52024-01-15Not public
Anlage K42024-01-15Not public
Anlage K32024-01-15Not public
Plain-English summary

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.

Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • New prior art introduced in defendant's rejoinder to revocation counterclaim constitutes an expansion requiring convincing justification for late filing

    ClaimantLegal basis: Rule 263 RoP

    Note: 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 RoP

    Note: 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.

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

  • New prior art and new invalidity attacks raised for the first time in the rejoinder to revocation counterclaim

    RespondentLegal basis: Rule 263 RoP

    Reason: Defendant failed to convince the court that due diligence precluded earlier filing of these prior-art attacks; the new material was not admitted.

Key legal principles
Doctrines and rules cited in the reasoning.
New prior art in rejoinder to revocation counterclaim treated as expansion requiring justification (R. 263 RoP)Defendant must show due diligence and absence of undue prejudice to admit late invalidity attacksSame diligence test applies when existing prior art is re-deployed for a new attack in the rejoinder

Browse other cases on this principle.