UPC CFI 26/2025
Jan 14, 2025·EP3705415 · PACKAGE, IN PARTICULAR FOR FOOD PRODUCTS
- Case details
- StatusCase Closed (No infringement)ActionInfringementCategoryMain infringement action
- Parties
- Claimants
- Messerle GmbHOperating co.
Representatives- Florian Robl-Torggler & Hofmann Patentanwälte
- Markus Gangl-Torggler & Hofmann Patentanwälte
Respondents- Sabert Corporation Europe S.A.Operating co.
- Division
- Vienna LD
- Technology
- Mechanical engineeringHandling
- Language
- English
- First decided
- Feb 19, 2026
| Infringement found | Median days to first decision | |
|---|---|---|
| All UPC | 53% (62/117) | 124 |
| Vienna LD | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Walter Schober | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Anna-Lena Klein | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Kai Härmand | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Max Tilmann | Locked | Locked |
At the UPC: Messerle GmbH (2 cases)·Sabert Corporation Europe S.A. (2 cases)
This dispute contains 1 other proceedings
- 2026-02-19Infringement ActionPublic
Summary: The Vienna Local Division dismissed both Messerle GmbH's infringement action and Sabert Corporation Europe's counterclaim for revocation concerning EP 3 705 415 B1 (a packaging-related patent). The infringement action was dismissed because the accused 'Tray2Go' product did not directly or equivalently infringe the patent claims — the Court found no technical-functional equivalence of the substitute means used in the accused product. The counterclaim for revocation was also dismissed, so the patent was maintained as granted. Each party bears its own costs (maximum EUR 600,000 total, split evenly between action and counterclaim).
Show the legal issues (5)
- Direct infringement and equivalence doctrine
- Technical-functional equivalence test
- Timeliness of prior art evidence under R. 25.1 RoP
- Disclosure content of commercial brochures as prior art
- Authentic language of patent under Art. 70(1) EPC
| Document title | Date | Public |
|---|---|---|
| Receipt | 2026-07-10 | Not public |
| Cover sheet | 2026-07-10 | Not public |
| Document Defendant | 2026-07-10 | Not public |
| Receipt | 2026-07-09 | Not public |
| Cover sheet | 2026-07-09 | Not public |
| Document Claimant | 2026-07-09 | Not public |
| Communication | 2026-06-26 | Not public |
| Other Documents | 2026-06-26 | Not public |
| Case closed | 2026-02-23 | Not public |
| Decision | 2026-02-19 | Not public |
Messerle GmbH sued Sabert Corporation Europe for infringement of EP 3 705 415 B1 (a food packaging patent) by Sabert's 'Tray2Go' product. The Vienna Local Division dismissed both the infringement action and Sabert's revocation counterclaim: no direct infringement was found and the claimant failed to establish technical-functional equivalence for the doctrine of equivalents because it did not identify the function or effect of the substituted structural means. The patent was maintained as granted and costs were split between the two proceedings.
No technical-functional equivalence of substitute means in accused 'Tray2Go' product
RespondentLegal basis: Doctrine of equivalents — technical-functional equivalence testNote: Defendant succeeded in defeating equivalence by showing the substituted sidewall element did not fulfil essentially the same function to achieve essentially the same effect as required by the patent's teaching.
Late-filed evidence of prior art (commercial brochure backed by physical product) should be excluded for lack of timely justification
RespondentLegal basis: R. 25.1 RoP; front-loaded approach; Preamble RoP 7Note: Court upheld exclusion of untimely prior-art evidence, reinforcing the front-loaded UPC procedural model requiring full cases to be submitted as early as possible.
Accused 'Tray2Go' product infringes the patent under the doctrine of equivalents via Variant A (gradual transgression of second stiffening portion)
ClaimantLegal basis: Doctrine of equivalents — technical-functional equivalence testReason: Claimant failed to demonstrate what technical effect the substitute means achieved or that it fulfilled essentially the same function to produce essentially the same effect; argument also raised for the first time in Reply and lacked supporting analysis.
Physical product obtained from a commercial brochure can establish the brochure's prior-art disclosure
RespondentLegal basis: Headnote 2 of decision; Art. 70(1) EPC (authentic text)Reason: A commercial brochure is evaluated as a stand-alone publication; obtaining the advertised physical product is not a valid approach to establishing the brochure's disclosure as a piece of prior art.
Claims should be construed based on English translation rather than the German-language authentic text
ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 70(1) EPCReason: Under Art. 70(1) EPC the language of the patent (German for EP415) is the authentic text; the court construed claims in German even though proceedings were in English.
Browse other cases on this principle.
The court construed the patent in the German-language authentic text (EP 3 705 415 B1 is in German), interpreting English translations in light of the German original. The key disputed structural feature was the 'wall portion of a side wall that has retaining elements' to which an adhesive-bonding portion is connected — the Tray2Go product uses a different side wall, which the court found neither literally nor equivalently covered.