UPC CFI 324/2024
Jun 17, 2024·EP2839083 · PILE SHOE
- Case details
- StatusCase Closed (Patent infringed)ActionInfringementCategoryMain infringement action
- Parties
- Claimants
- Tiroler Rohre GmbHOperating co.
Representatives- Florian Robl-Torggler & Hofmann Patentanwälte
Respondents- SSAB Swedish Steel GmbHOperating co.
- SSAB Europe OyOperating co.
Representatives- Christian Meyer-Maiwald
- Division
- Munich LD
- Technology
- Other fieldsCivil engineering
- Language
- German
| Infringement found | Median days to first decision | |
|---|---|---|
| All UPC | 53% (62/117) | 124 |
| Munich LD | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Matthias Zigann | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Tobias Pichlmaier | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Margot Kokke | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Dennis Kretschmann | Locked | Locked |
At the UPC: Tiroler Rohre GmbH (7 cases)·SSAB Swedish Steel GmbH (7 cases)
This dispute contains 6 other proceedings
UPC CFI 598/2025·UPC CoA 153/2025·UPC CFI 640/2024·UPC CFI 487/2024·UPC CFI 98/2024 and 1 more
- 2025-06-06Infringement ActionPublic
Summary: Infringement action by Tiroler Rohre GmbH (Austria) against SSAB Swedish Steel GmbH and SSAB Europe Oy concerning a driving pile tip device (Rammspitze) and EP 2 839 083 B9. The court found infringement of the patent as amended. It ordered: injunction, recall and destruction of infringing pile tips and moulds, disclosure of information, publication of decision in four trade journals. The invalidity counterclaim against the patent as originally granted was upheld in part (patent amended). Key headnotes: burden of proof for impossibility of infringement lies with defendant; infringement exists even if patented function only occasionally achieved.
Show the legal issues (4)
- Infringement: burden of proof on impossibility defence
- Infringement where patented function achieved only occasionally
- Patent amendment in invalidity counterclaim
- Recall and destruction of infringing products
| Document title | Date | Public |
|---|---|---|
| DecisionOutcome | 2025-06-06 | Not public |
| Entscheidung | 2025-06-06 | Public |
| Oral Hearing Reference document | 2025-06-06 | Not public |
| Oral Hearing Reference document | 2025-06-06 | Not public |
| Interim-Procedure-Closure | 2025-05-07 | Not public |
| Summon-Oral-Hearing | 2025-05-07 | Not public |
| Terminierung | 2025-05-07 | Public |
| Hearing-Dates | 2025-05-07 | Not public |
| Written-Procedure-Closure | 2025-05-07 | Not public |
| Protokoll interim conference | 2025-05-07 | Public |
Tiroler Rohre GmbH (Austria) sued SSAB Swedish Steel GmbH and SSAB Europe Oy for infringement of EP 2 839 083 B9, a patent for a driving pile tip device (Rammspitze) used in foundation pile construction. The Munich Local Division found infringement of the patent as amended pursuant to auxiliary requests, granted an injunction, and ordered recall, destruction and information disclosure; SSAB's invalidity counterclaim was upheld against the original claims but the amended claims were maintained, with costs split 20% claimant and 80% defendants.
The accused pile tip device has the required capability under the patent claim even if the patented function is only occasionally or accidentally achieved
ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 25 UPCA; Art. 54 EPGÜNote: Court held that infringement exists where the device has the required capability; whether the patented effects are regularly, occasionally, or accidentally achieved and whether the user intends to achieve them is irrelevant.
Burden of proof for impossibility of infringement lies with defendants, not the patentee
ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 54 UPCANote: Where defendants argue infringement is impossible due to features outside the patent claim, they bear the burden of proof for that assertion; claimant need not address features outside the claim.
Patent as amended (auxiliary requests) avoids invalidity and is infringed
ClaimantLegal basis: R. 30 RoP; Art. 65 UPCANote: Court accepted patent amendments via auxiliary requests, maintaining the patent in amended form and finding infringement of the amended claims.
Invalidity of EP 2 839 083 B9 as originally granted (revocation counterclaim)
RespondentLegal basis: Art. 65 UPCAReason: Patent was maintained in amended form via auxiliary requests; original invalidity finding did not defeat the infringement claim.
Infringement is impossible due to features outside the patent claim that prevent the patented function from being achieved
RespondentLegal basis: Art. 25 UPCAReason: Defendants bear the burden of proof for this impossibility argument; infringement turns on capability under the claim, not on whether the patented effect is always or ever intended.
Browse other cases on this principle.
The case concerned EP 2 839 083 B9, a pile shoe (Rammspitze) patent. The court's capability-based infringement test focused on whether the challenged pile tip embodied the structural features recited in the amended claims, irrespective of whether concrete poured through the device's channels actually achieved the patented distribution effect in every use.