UPClytics
ENDE
Sign inStart trial
View all cases

UPC CFI 178/2024

Apr 15, 2024·EP2726230 · METHOD AND DEVICE FOR CONTINUOUSLY PRODUCING A MESH-TYPE SUPPORT

Action number: ACT 20004/2024

Follow
Case details
Status
Case Closed (No infringement)
Action
Infringement
Category
Main infringement action
Parties
Respondents
Representatives
Division
Milan LD
Judges
Technology
  • Mechanical engineering
    Machine tools
Language
English
First decided
Jun 17, 2025
Last decision
Oct 27, 2025
EPO Opposition
  • EVG Entwicklungs- u. Verwertungs- Gesellschaft m.b.H.Admissible2017-09-07
  • Schlatter Industries AGAdmissible2017-10-31
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
Milan LDLockedLocked
Judge Pierluigi PerrottiLockedLocked
Judge Alima ZanaLockedLocked
Judge Camille LignièresLockedLocked
Judge Koen CallewaertLockedLocked

At the UPC: Progress Maschinen & Automation AG (9 cases)·AWM s.r.l. (9 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 921/2025·UPC CFI 432/2024·UPC CFI 286/2023·UPC CFI 287/2023·ORD 9710/2024

Start a free trial to see how each one ended.

More cases: Milan LD·2024

Decisions
  • 2025-10-27
    Infringement ActionPublic

    Summary: The Milan Local Division issued a rectification order under R. 353 RoP correcting an inaccuracy in the header of its 27 October 2025 decision by adding the full list of defendants' legal representatives (Studio Legale Costa-Creta).

    Show the legal issues (2)
    • R. 353 RoP rectification of clerical error in decision
    • Correction of list of parties' representatives
  • 2025-10-27
    revocation counterclaim

    Summary: - the European Patent EP 2726230 B1 is revoked in its entirety in the territory of all Contracting Member States in which the patent has effect; - the application to amend the patent is dismissed; ... - the infringement action is dismissed;

  • 2025-06-17
    Infringement ActionPublic

    Summary: The Milan Local Division issued a post-interim-conference order in infringement proceedings between Progress Maschinen & Automation AG and SCHNELL/AWM, deciding on the admissibility of a new auxiliary request, withdrawing certain evidence production requests, and setting the case for oral hearing.

    Show the legal issues (3)
    • Admissibility of new auxiliary request R. 30.2 RoP
    • Evidence production R. 190 RoP
    • Case management after interim conference R. 105.5 RoP
Documents
Show all 508 documents
Document titleDatePublic
Other Documents2026-06-22Not public
Case closed2025-11-25Not public
Order2025-11-19Public
Order2025-11-12Not public
Order2025-11-12Not public
Cover sheet2025-11-03Not public
Other document Claimant2025-11-03Not public
Receipt2025-11-03Not public
Order2025-10-28Not public
Order2025-10-28Not public
Coverage: Partial.Reasoning extracted with partial coverage — some sections may be incomplete.
Plain-English summary

Progress Maschinen & Automation AG sued AWM s.r.l. and Schnell s.p.a. for infringement of EP 2 726 230 B1, a patent for a method and device for continuously producing a mesh-type support for construction reinforcement. The Milan Local Division found the patent invalid for lack of novelty (the claimed invention being directly and unambiguously disclosed in prior art including prior use), dismissed the application to amend the patent, and consequently dismissed the infringement action; costs were borne by Progress as the unsuccessful claimant.

Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • EP 2 726 230 B1 lacks novelty over prior art made available to the public by use

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 54 EPC

    Note: The Milan Local Division revoked the patent in its entirety on novelty grounds, applying the principle that an invention is part of the state of the art when disclosed integrally, directly, and unambiguously in a single piece of prior art including prior use.

  • Technical problem for inventive step cannot use effects requiring additional information not available to the skilled person from the patent application

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 56 EPC

    Note: Court articulated this as a headnote principle in assessing the obviousness of the mesh-production method claims.

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

  • Application to amend the patent (auxiliary requests) should be admitted

    ClaimantLegal basis: R. 30.2 RoP

    Reason: The application to amend the patent was dismissed; the court applied the requirements of R. 30.2 RoP for admissibility of amendment requests and found them not met.

  • Infringement action for EP 2 726 230 B1

    Claimant

    Reason: Dismissed as a consequence of the patent being revoked in its entirety.

Key legal principles
Doctrines and rules cited in the reasoning.
Novelty: an invention is part of the state of the art when disclosed completely and unambiguously in a single prior art document or prior useInventive step: objective technical problem must be derived from effects causally related to claimed technical features; effects requiring additional information not in the application cannot define the problemAmendment during proceedings subject to admissibility requirements (R. 30.2 RoP)Revocation defeats infringement action

Browse other cases on this principle.

Prior art relied on
References cited and the role they played.
  • Prior use (Girderflex machine) at EUR 2,000,000 price pointNovelty-destroying