UPClytics
ENDE
Sign inStart trial
View all cases

UPC CFI 16/2024

Jan 18, 2024·EP3466498 · SEARCH DEVICE FOR AVALANCHE VICTIMS AND METHOD FOR OPERATING A SEARCH DEVICE FOR AVALANCHE VICTIMS

Action number: ACT 2379/2024

Follow
Case details
Status
Case Closed (Patent infringed)
Action
Infringement
Category
Main infringement action
Parties
Claimants
Representatives
Respondents
Representatives
Division
Dusseldorf LD
Judges
Technology
  • Other fields
    Consumer products
Language
German
First decided
Jan 14, 2025
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: Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH (22 cases)·Mammut Group (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·2024

Decisions
  • 2025-01-14
    Infringement ActionPublic

    Summary: Final decision in infringement action (with counterclaim for revocation) concerning an avalanche transceiver patent. The Düsseldorf Local Division found direct and indirect infringement by the Mammut defendants, granted an injunction, ordered recall and removal from distribution channels, ordered provision of accounts, and declared liability for damages (with EUR 3,000 preliminary damages awarded). The counterclaim for revocation was dismissed. Costs were split: claimant to bear 80%, each defendant 10% of infringement action costs; defendants to bear costs of revocation counterclaim.

    Show the legal issues (8)
    • Direct patent infringement
    • Indirect patent infringement
    • Novelty
    • Inventive step
    • Destruction of infringing goods
    • Recall from distribution channels
    • Publication of decision (Art. 80 UPCA)
    • Activation of patented features by end users
Documents
Show all 205 documents
Document titleDatePublic
Case Closure Formal Check2025-09-12Not public
Gelegenheit zur Stellungnahme2025-01-22Not public
Receipt2025-01-22Not public
Receipt2025-01-22Not public
2025-01-21 Berichtigungsantrag Ortovox2025-01-21Not public
2025-01-21 Ortovox Mitteilung Vollstreckungsabsicht2025-01-21Not public
Headnote-and-Keywords2025-01-14Not public
DecisionOutcome2025-01-14Not public
Entscheidung2025-01-14Public
Verlegung Termin zur Verkündung einer Entscheidung2024-12-18Public
Coverage: Partial.Reasoning extracted with partial coverage — some sections may be incomplete.
Plain-English summary

Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH sued Mammut Sports Group AG and GmbH before the Düsseldorf Local Division for infringement of EP 3 466 498 B1, a patent for an avalanche search transceiver. The court found both direct and indirect infringement (including through customer-activated functions), granted a permanent injunction, ordered recall and removal from distribution channels, and declared Mammut's liability for damages (with EUR 3,000 preliminary award). The revocation counterclaim was dismissed and costs were split with claimant bearing 80% of infringement action costs and defendants bearing costs of the revocation counterclaim.

Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • Direct and indirect infringement established: defendant must bear responsibility for customer activation of infringing functions where it instructs customers to activate and knowingly exploits such activation

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 25, 26 UPCA

    Note: The Düsseldorf Local Division held that where a device in its offered state requires customer activation of certain functions to realise all patent claim features, the infringer is liable where it instructs or knowingly exploits such activation; both direct and indirect infringement were established.

  • Destruction ordered rather than software deactivation; deactivation only acceptable if re-enabling to infringing state is impossible

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 64 UPCA

    Note: The court ordered destruction unless software deactivation would reliably and permanently prevent the device from being re-enabled in an infringing state.

  • Publication of decision not warranted where claimant's protection already addressed by other measures

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 80 UPCA

    Note: The court exercised its discretion under Art. 80 UPCA and declined to order publication, finding that the claimant's interests were already adequately addressed by the injunction and other corrective measures.

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

  • Patent EP 3 466 498 is invalid (counterclaim for revocation) — novelty and inventive step

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 65 UPCA; Art. 54, 56 EPC

    Reason: The revocation counterclaim was dismissed; the court found the patent valid, upholding novelty and inventive step.

Key legal principles
Doctrines and rules cited in the reasoning.
direct and indirect infringement where customer activation of infringing features is instructed or knowingly exploiteddestruction as corrective measure; software deactivation insufficient unless re-enabling impossiblediscretion to order publication of decision under Art. 80 UPCA; normally only where other measures insufficientcosts apportionment in proceedings with partial success on both sides

Browse other cases on this principle.

Claim construction notes

The key claim construction issue concerned whether the accused avalanche transceiver in its offered state realised all features of the patent claim. The court held that where customer activation of certain functions is needed, liability attaches when the defendant instructs or knowingly exploits such activation, bridging the gap between the device as offered and the claimed device as fully realised.