UPC CFI 274/2023
EP1740740 · COMPACT SERVICE MODULE WHICH IS INTENDED FOR ELECTROLYTIC ALUMINIUM PRODUCTION PLANTS
- Case details
- StatusClaim dismissedActionDamages assessmentCategoryCosts assessments
- Parties
- Claimants
- Fives ECL, SASOperating co.
Representatives- Konstantin Schallmoser-Preu Bohlig & Partner
- Daniel Hoppe-Bonabry
- Carl-Alexander Dinges-Bonabry
Respondents- REEL GmbHOperating co.
Representatives- Benjamin Schröer-Hogan Lovells International LLP
- Leonhard Hollander-Hogan Lovells International LLP
- Division
- Hamburg LD
- Judges
- Technology
- ChemistrySurface technology, coating
- Language
- —
- First decided
- Nov 17, 2023
- Last decision
- Feb 11, 2026
| Median days to first decision | |
|---|---|
| All UPC | 124 |
| Hamburg LD | Locked |
| Judge Sabine Klepsch | Locked |
At the UPC: Fives ECL, SAS (5 cases)·REEL GmbH (4 cases)
This dispute contains 3 other proceedings
UPC CoA 42/2026·no order number559935/2023 - application processed in hardcopy only (outside CMS)·UPC CoA 30/2024
1 other defendants litigating the same or a related patent
Start a free trial to see how each one ended.
More cases: Hamburg LD·2023
- 2026-02-11Determination of damages and compensationPublic
Summary: Hamburg Local Division dismissed Fives ECL's claim for damages (lost profits) against REEL GmbH in determination of damages proceedings. The Court found that Fives ECL had not sufficiently demonstrated that the profit loss was causally linked to the patent infringement, given that the infringer could have submitted an alternative non-infringing offer. National German law applied as the relevant facts occurred before 1 June 2023.
Show the legal issues (4)
- Determination of damages – lost profits
- Applicable law for pre-UPC infringement acts
- Causation of lost profits
- Alternative offer by infringer
- 2023-11-17Determination of damages and compensationPublic
Summary: The Hamburg Local Division dismissed Fives ECL's action for determination of damages based on a prior national court judgment (Landgericht Düsseldorf), holding that the UPC lacks jurisdiction under Article 32 UPCA to assess damages that were not preceded by a UPC infringement action; a national patent enforcement judgment cannot found UPC damages jurisdiction.
Show the legal issues (3)
- Jurisdiction for damages determination (Art. 32(1)(a)(f) UPCA)
- Prior national patent infringement judgment
- No prior UPC infringement action
- 2023-11-17%20LD%20Hamburg%20UPC_CFI_274-2023%20ACT_559935-2023%20anonymized.pdf2023-11-17DE
- Entscheidung%20geschwa%CC%88rzt.pdf2026-02-11DE