UPClytics
ENDE
Sign inStart trial
View all cases

UPC CFI 115/2025

Feb 14, 2025·EP3466498 · SEARCH DEVICE FOR AVALANCHE VICTIMS AND METHOD FOR OPERATING A SEARCH DEVICE FOR AVALANCHE VICTIMS

Follow
Case details
Status
Case Closed
Action
Generic
Category
Main infringement action
Parties
Claimants
Representatives
Respondents
Representatives
Division
Dusseldorf LD
Judges
Technology
  • Other fields
    Consumer products
Language
German
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 Walter SchoberLockedLocked
Judge Erwin WismethLockedLocked

At the UPC: Mammut Group (22 cases)·Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH (22 cases)

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

This dispute contains 19 other proceedings

UPC CoA 216/2025·UPC CoA 217/2025·UPC CoA 228/2025·UPC CFI 121/2025·UPC CFI 124/2025 and 14 more

Start a free trial to see how each one ended.

More cases: Dusseldorf LD·2025

Documents
Document titleDatePublic
Headnote-and-Keywords2025-04-22Not public
Application-For-Costs-Decision-Outcome2025-04-22Not public
Entscheidung im Kostenfestsetzungsverfahren2025-04-22Public
Entscheidung im Kostenfestsetzungsverfahren2025-04-22Public
Receipt2025-03-10Not public
250310 Stn. re Kosten2025-03-10Not public
Gelegenheit zur Stellungnahme2025-03-01Not public
2025-02-28_Stellungnahme_Ortovox_Kostenfestsetzung_signed.pdf2025-02-28Not public
Gelegenheit zur Stellungnahme2025-02-17Not public
Panel-Appointment2025-02-14Not public
Receipt2025-02-14Not public
Acknowledgement-of-lodging2025-02-13Not public
Anlage KFA 22025-02-13Not public
Anlage KFA 12025-02-13Not public
250213 Antrag KF UPC2025-02-13Not public
Coverage: Partial.Reasoning extracted with partial coverage — some sections may be incomplete.
Plain-English summary

Hartmann Packaging A/S (claimant) brought an infringement action against Omni-Pac Ekco GmbH and Omni-Pac GmbH concerning an egg display and distribution package patent. The Düsseldorf Local Division dismissed the infringement action and partially granted the defendants' counterclaim for revocation, revoking method and product claims of EP 2 755 901 B1 while dismissing the remainder. Key principles established include: the standard for 'same invention' under Art. 87 EPC mirrors the added matter test, and selection from a limited range of known materials does not confer inventive step.

Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • Partial revocation of EP 2 755 901 B1: counterclaim for revocation succeeded in part (claims 1-8 of the egg packaging patent revoked)

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 65 UPCA; Art. 56 EPC

    Note: Düsseldorf Local Division upheld the partial invalidity counterclaim, revoking claims as listed in the order (egg packaging display and method claims).

  • Priority entitlement: 'same invention' under Art. 87 EPC requires that the skilled person can derive the claim subject-matter directly and unambiguously from the priority application as a whole using common general knowledge

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 87 EPC

    Note: Court adopted the standard that the 'same invention' assessment for priority corresponds to the added matter disclosure standard.

  • Selection of material from a limited class of known suitable materials does not establish inventive step

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 56 EPC

    Note: Court held that where the skilled person knows multiple suitable materials and selects one, no special skill is needed and no inventive step is established.

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

  • Infringement of EP 2 755 901 B1 and/or EP 3 466 498 by defendants' egg packaging products

    ClaimantLegal basis: EP2755901B1; EP3466498

    Reason: Infringement action dismissed in its entirety; the Court found no infringement, though specific claim-by-claim analysis is not captured in the available excerpt.

  • Counterclaim for revocation dismissed in remaining parts beyond the partially revoked claims

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 65 UPCA

    Reason: Not all revocation attacks succeeded; the remaining portion of the counterclaim was dismissed.

Key legal principles
Doctrines and rules cited in the reasoning.
priority: 'same invention' standard under Art. 87 EPC equated to added matter disclosure standardinventive step: material selection from limited class of known materials not inventiveequivalence assessment in infringementpartial revocation of patent on counterclaimcosts split proportionally where each party partially succeeds

Browse other cases on this principle.

Claim construction notes

Note: the case file data lists patent_title as an avalanche victim search device and patents EP3466498 and EP2755901, but the excerpt text and parties (Hartmann Packaging / Omni-Pac) relate to an egg packaging case (EP2755901B1 egg display package). The case metadata appears to contain a mismatch. The analysis is based on the excerpt content which concerns the egg packaging patent. The technical issues addressed are: priority validity, inventive step in material selection, equivalence in the infringement context.