UPClytics
View all cases

UPC CFI 324/2024

Jun 17, 2024·EP2839083 · PILE SHOE

Case details
Status
Case Closed (Patent infringed)
Action
Infringement
Category
Main infringement action
Parties
Claimants
Representatives
Respondents
Representatives
Division
Munich LD
Technology
  • Other fields
    Civil engineering
Language
German
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
Munich LDLockedLocked
Judge Matthias ZigannLockedLocked
Judge Tobias PichlmaierLockedLocked
Judge Margot KokkeLockedLocked
Judge Dennis KretschmannLockedLocked

At the UPC: Tiroler Rohre GmbH (7 cases)·SSAB Swedish Steel GmbH (7 cases)

Decisions
  • 2025-06-06
    Infringement 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 titleDatePublic
DecisionOutcome2025-06-06Not public
Entscheidung2025-06-06Public
Oral Hearing Reference document2025-06-06Not public
Oral Hearing Reference document2025-06-06Not public
Interim-Procedure-Closure2025-05-07Not public
Summon-Oral-Hearing2025-05-07Not public
Terminierung2025-05-07Public
Hearing-Dates2025-05-07Not public
Written-Procedure-Closure2025-05-07Not public
Protokoll interim conference2025-05-07Public
Coverage: Partial.Reasoning extracted with partial coverage — some sections may be incomplete.
Plain-English summary

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.

Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.
  • 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 EPGÜ

    Note: 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 UPCA

    Note: 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 UPCA

    Note: Court accepted patent amendments via auxiliary requests, maintaining the patent in amended form and finding infringement of the amended claims.

Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.
  • Invalidity of EP 2 839 083 B9 as originally granted (revocation counterclaim)

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 65 UPCA

    Reason: 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 UPCA

    Reason: 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.

Claim construction notes

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.