UPC Analytics
ENDE
Overview · Filed: Jun 14, 2024

UPC_CFI_316/2024

DEVICE FOR CONTINUOUS FILTRATION OF IMPURITIES FROM A MOLTEN PLASTIC

InfringementMain Infringement ActionDusseldorf LDInfringementCase Closed
OverviewDecisionsReasoningCitationsDocumentsTimeline
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.