UPClytics
ENDE
Sign inStart trial
View all cases

UPC CFI 181/2023

Jul 6, 2023·EP3221117 · MULTIPLE EXTRUSION HEAD

Follow
Case details
Status
Case Closed (Withdrawn)
Action
Infringement
Category
Main infringement action
Parties
Respondents
Representatives
Division
Munich LD
Judges
Technology
  • Mechanical engineering
    Other special machines
Language
German
First decided
Dec 27, 2023
Last decision
Jan 23, 2024
EPO Opposition
  • isarpatent - Patent- und Rechtsanwälte Behnisch Barth Charles Hassa Peckmann und Partner mbB2020-01-15
  • TROESTER GmbH & Co. KG2020-01-16
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
Munich LDLockedLocked
Judge Matthias ZigannLockedLocked
Judge Mojca MlakarLockedLocked
Judge Tobias PichlmaierLockedLocked
Judge Beate SchenkLockedLocked

At the UPC: KraussMaffei Extrusion GmbH (2 cases)·TROESTER GmbH & Co. KG (2 cases)

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

This dispute contains 1 other proceedings

UPC APP 40022/2024

Start a free trial to see how each one ended.

More cases: Munich LD·2023

Decisions
  • 2024-07-11
    Infringement ActionPublic

    Summary: The Munich Local Division confirmed the withdrawal of KraussMaffei Extrusion GmbH's infringement action against Troester GmbH & Co. KG concerning EP 3 221 117, following an out-of-court settlement reached by the parties after the oral hearing of 16 April 2024. The court also ordered partial reimbursement of court fees.

    Show the legal issues (3)
    • Withdrawal of action after oral hearing (R. 265 RoP)
    • Settlement following hearing
    • Reimbursement of court fees
  • 2024-01-23
    Infringement ActionPublic

    Summary: The Munich Local Division issued a post-interim-conference order in KraussMaffei v. TROESTER, confirming the oral hearing date of 16 April 2024, setting final pleading deadlines, fixing the value of the proceedings at EUR 2 million, and inviting parties to submit preliminary cost estimates.

    Show the legal issues (3)
    • Results of interim conference
    • Setting of oral hearing and pleading schedule
    • Value of proceedings (EUR 2 million)
  • 2023-12-27
    Infringement ActionPublic

    Summary: The Munich Local Division issued a procedural order in the KraussMaffei v. TROESTER infringement case, establishing rules for the protection of confidential information under Rules 262 and 262A RoP, clarifying that confidentiality applications must be made at the time of initial filing or within 14 days, and that in exceptional circumstances protection may be granted via Rule 9 workflow.

    Show the legal issues (4)
    • Rules 262 and 262A RoP: protection of confidential information
    • Timing of confidentiality applications relative to initial filing
    • Exceptional Rule 9 workflow for delayed confidentiality requests
    • Contempt fine under Rule 354.3 RoP limited by the party's request
Documents
Show all 209 documents
Document titleDatePublic
Case Closure Formal Check2025-04-17Not public
Final Order2024-07-22Not public
Final Order2024-07-22Not public
Headnote-and-Keyword-Translated2024-07-18Not public
Headnote-and-Keywords2024-07-18Not public
Headnote-and-Keyword-Translated2024-07-16Not public
DecisionOutcome2024-07-16Not public
R 265 final2024-07-16Public
Headnote-and-Keywords2024-07-16Not public
Outcome of the Order2024-07-16Not public
Coverage: Thin.Reasoning extracted with limited coverage — see decisions tab for full text.
Plain-English summary

KraussMaffei Extrusion GmbH brought a UPC infringement action against TROESTER GmbH & Co. KG concerning EP 3221117 (a multiple extrusion head). Following an oral hearing on 16 April 2024 and with a decision date set for September 2024, the parties reached an out-of-court settlement and KraussMaffei withdrew the action in July 2024. The Munich Local Division accepted the withdrawal, declared proceedings closed, and ordered 20% reimbursement of court fees as the oral procedure was not yet formally closed at the time of withdrawal.

Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

No accepted arguments captured.

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

No rejected arguments captured.

Key legal principles
Doctrines and rules cited in the reasoning.
Withdrawal of infringement action is permissible with defendant's consent under Rule 265 RoP20% court fee reimbursement available where action withdrawn before closure of oral procedure under Rule 370.9(b)(iii) RoPOral procedure not considered closed where court sets further written deadlines and schedules a decision date after the hearing

Browse other cases on this principle.