UPClytics
ENDE
Sign inStart trial
View all cases

UPC CFI 316/2024

Jun 14, 2024·EP2061575 · DEVICE FOR CONTINUOUS FILTRATION OF IMPURITIES FROM A MOLTEN PLASTIC

Follow
Case details
Status
Case Closed (Patent infringed)
Action
Infringement
Category
Main infringement action
Parties
Claimants
Representatives
Respondents
Representatives
Division
Dusseldorf LD
Judges
Technology
  • Chemistry
    Chemical engineering
  • Mechanical engineering
    Other special machines
Language
German
First decided
Dec 10, 2025
EPO Opposition
  • Ettlinger Kunststoffmaschinen GmbHWithdrawn2014-05-07
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 Jule SchumacherLockedLocked
Judge Mojca MlakarLockedLocked
Judge Kerstin Roselinger—Locked

At the UPC: M-A-S Maschinen- und Anlagenbau Schulz GmbH (4 cases)·Altech Makina Sanayi ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi (4 cases)

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

This dispute contains 3 other proceedings

UPC CoA 20/2026·UPC CFI 547/2024·UPC APP 36031/2024

Start a free trial to see how each one ended.

More cases: Dusseldorf LD·2024

Decisions
  • 2025-12-10
    Counterclaim for revocationPublic

    Summary: The Düsseldorf Local Division found indirect infringement of EP 2 061 575 B1 by Altech Makina and granted an injunction with removal from channels of commerce, while dismissing the revocation counterclaim; the infringement action was otherwise dismissed in part, with claimant bearing 30% and defendant 70% of costs.

    Show the legal issues (5)
    • Indirect patent infringement
    • Recall and removal from channels not available for indirect infringement only
    • Interim award of damages under R. 119 RoP - plausibility requirement
    • Inventive step in revocation counterclaim - burden of proof
    • Patent exhaustion defense
Documents
Show all 100 documents
Document titleDatePublic
Communication2026-09-11Not public
Receipt2026-09-08Not public
Cover sheet2026-09-08Not public
Application document Applicant2026-09-08Not public
Receipt2025-12-23Not public
Cover sheet2025-12-23Not public
Application document Claimant2025-12-23Not public
Receipt2025-12-19Not public
Cover sheet2025-12-19Not public
Application document Claimant2025-12-19Not public
Plain-English summary

M-A-S Maschinen- und Anlagenbau Schulz GmbH (Germany) sued Altech Makina Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (Turkey) for infringement of EP 2 061 575 B1, a patent for a device for continuous filtration of impurities from molten plastic. The Düsseldorf Local Division found indirect infringement and granted an injunction with removal from channels of commerce, but refused recall/destruction (not available for indirect infringement only) and lump-sum interim damages (insufficient factual basis); the revocation counterclaim was dismissed because Altech failed to explain how the named prior art would be combined by a skilled person.

Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • Indirect infringement of EP 2 061 575 B1 by Altech Makina's supply of essential components

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 26 UPCA

    Note: Court found indirect patent infringement and granted an injunction with removal from channels of commerce.

  • Revocation claimant must not only name prior art documents but explain their disclosure and how the skilled person would combine them to arrive at the invention without inventive activity

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 65 UPCA; R. 206 RoP

    Note: Court held the revocation counterclaim failed because defendant did not adequately explain why and how the skilled person would have combined the named prior art documents.

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

  • Patent EP 2 061 575 B1 lacks inventive step based on named prior art documents (revocation counterclaim)

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 65 UPCA

    Reason: Merely naming prior art documents is insufficient; the revocation claimant must explain their content and specifically detail how the skilled person would combine them to arrive at the claimed solution without inventive activity.

  • Recall, removal from channels of commerce, and destruction ordered for indirectly infringing products

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 63 UPCA; R. 119 RoP

    Reason: Recall, removal and destruction are generally not available for products only challenged on the basis of indirect infringement.

  • Interim award of lump-sum damages (R. 119 RoP) without specific factual basis

    ClaimantLegal basis: R. 119 RoP

    Reason: R. 119 RoP requires sufficient factual basis for a lump-sum award; claimant's submission must show the claim is based on a plausible estimate of specific facts.

  • Exhaustion defence: products supplied by patent holder exhaust patent rights

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 29 UPCA

    Reason: Exhaustion defence did not succeed on the facts (court found infringement); the underlying principles were addressed but the defence failed.

Key legal principles
Doctrines and rules cited in the reasoning.
Recall, removal from channels of commerce, and destruction generally unavailable for products challenged on indirect infringement onlyInterim lump-sum damages under R. 119 RoP require sufficient factual basis and plausible estimation of specific factsRevocation claimant must explain prior art content and articulate how the skilled person would combine documents without inventive step; naming documents alone is insufficientIndirect infringement under Art. 26 UPCA can ground an injunction and removal order even absent direct infringementExhaustion under Art. 29 UPCA assessed on specific facts of authorised first placing on market

Browse other cases on this principle.