UPClytics
EnglishDeutsch
Sign inSign up
View all cases

UPC CFI 33/2024

Jan 26, 2024·EP2643717 +1 more: COLOR-MIXING CONVERGENT OPTICAL SYSTEM

Case details
Status
Case Closed
Action
Infringement
Category
Main Infringement Action
Parties
Claimants
Reps: Alexander Koller (NOMOS Rechtsanwälte GmbH)
Respondents
Reps: Rainer Beetz (SONN Patentanwälte)
Division
Vienna LD
Judges
Technology
Measurement & Instrumentation · Sensors · Display & Signage
Language
German
First decided
Jan 16, 2025
Claims
At issueall
Infringedall
Notes: Vienna LD found infringement of EP2643717 (color-mixing optical system) by Strabag; no counterclaim for revocation was filed so validity was not examined; specific claim numbers not enumerated in excerpt.
Decisions
  • 2025-01-16
    InfringedInjunction grantedInfringement meritsInfringement Action

    Vienna Local Division found that Strabag Infrastructure & Safety Solutions GmbH infringed SWARCO FUTURIT's European Patent EP 2 643 717. The Court granted an injunction, recall of infringing products from distribution channels, provision of information and destruction of infringing products. Damages were referred to a separate assessment procedure. A validity defence was not considered as no counterclaim for revocation was filed. SWARCO's request to publish the judgment was rejected; Strabag and the intervener were ordered to bear costs.

    Legal issues:Patent infringement (traffic signal systems)No counterclaim for revocation required to raise invalidity defence (R. 25 RoP)Removal from distribution channels vs. recallPublication of judgment (Art. 80 UPCA)Cost allocation for intervener
Documents
Document titleDatePublic
action.phaseChange.caseClose2025-11-20Not public
Headnote-and-Keywords2025-03-25Not public
Outcome of the Order2025-01-16Not public
Endentscheidung2025-01-16Public
Verhandlungstermin2024-10-01Public
Hearing-Dates2024-10-01Not public
Acknowledgement-of-lodging2024-09-19Not public
Rejoinder to the Reply to the Defence2024-09-19Not public
Anordnung2024-09-03Public
Headnote-and-Keywords2024-09-03Not public
Acknowledgement-of-lodging2024-08-19Not public
Replik auf die Klageerwiderung2024-08-19Not public
Beilage K 142024-08-19Not public
Beilage K 132024-08-19Not public
Beilagenverzeichnis (ergänzt)2024-08-19Not public
Panel-Appointment2024-07-31Not public
Verfahrensanordnung2024-07-31Public
Stellungnahme zum Streithilfeantrag2024-07-05Not public
Comments to Application to intervene2024-07-05Not public
Outcome of the Order2024-06-21Not public
Zuweisung TQL2024-06-21Public
Streithilfeantrag2024-06-21Not public
Verfahrensanordnung2024-06-21Not public
Formal-checks_Notification-of-positive-outcome2024-06-20Not public
Acknowledgement-of-lodging2024-06-03Not public
Exhibit S42024-06-03Not public
Exhibit S132024-06-03Not public
Exhibit S62024-06-03Not public
Exhibit S32024-06-03Not public
Exhibit S4a2024-06-03Not public
Exhibit S92024-06-03Not public
Exhibit S102024-06-03Not public
Exhibit S22024-06-03Not public
Statement of Defence2024-06-03Not public
Exhibit S12024-06-03Not public
Exhibit S52024-06-03Not public
Exhibit S142024-06-03Not public
Exhibit S122024-06-03Not public
Exhibit S72024-06-03Not public
Exhibit S82024-06-03Not public
Exhibit S112024-06-03Not public
List of Documents (R24(j))2024-06-03Not public
Acknowledgement of access to case2024-03-13Not public
Notification Of Service2024-03-04Not public
Rueckschein_ACT_4261_20242024-03-04Not public
epoUploadDocumentsWorkflow2024-02-27Not public
Letter for Service2024-02-26Not public
Document from EPO2024-02-09Not public
Panel-Appointment2024-02-07Not public
EPO-Request-for-case-pending2024-01-31Not public
Receipt2024-01-31Not public
Formal-checks_Notification-of-positive-outcome2024-01-31Not public
Beilage K32024-01-30Not public
Beilage K7_c2024-01-30Not public
Beilage K7_b2024-01-30Not public
Beilage K7_d2024-01-30Not public
Beilage K92024-01-30Not public
Beilage K7_f2024-01-30Not public
Beilage K7_a2024-01-30Not public
Aufstellung gem Art 13(1)q VerfO2024-01-30Not public
Beilage K102024-01-30Not public
Beilage K62024-01-30Not public
Beilage K22024-01-30Not public
Beilage K42024-01-30Not public
Beilage K112024-01-30Not public
Klage2024-01-30Not public
Beilage K52024-01-30Not public
Beilage K122024-01-30Not public
Beilage K7_e2024-01-30Not public
Beilage K82024-01-30Not public
Beilage K12024-01-30Not public
Mitteilung über elektr. Zustelladresse2024-01-30Not public
Mitteilung über die elektr. Zustelladresse2024-01-30Not public
Formal-checks_Request-for-correction2024-01-30Not public
Acknowledgement-of-lodging2024-01-26Not public
Beilage K112024-01-26Not public
Beilage K12024-01-26Not public
Beilage K22024-01-26Not public
Beilage K7_f2024-01-26Not public
Beilage K32024-01-26Not public
Beilage K7_a2024-01-26Not public
Beilage K7_d2024-01-26Not public
Beilage K62024-01-26Not public
Beilage K92024-01-26Not public
Beilage K52024-01-26Not public
Beilage K122024-01-26Not public
Beilage K7_e2024-01-26Not public
Beilage K42024-01-26Not public
Beilage K82024-01-26Not public
Klage2024-01-26Not public
Beilage K7_c2024-01-26Not public
Beilage K102024-01-26Not public
Beilage K7_b2024-01-26Not public
Coverage: Partial.Reasoning extracted with partial coverage — some sections may be incomplete.
Plain-English summary

SWARCO FUTURIT sued STRABAG Infrastructure & Safety Solutions at the Vienna Local Division for infringement of EP 2 643 717, a patent covering a color-mixing convergent optical system used in traffic signals. The court found infringement, granted an injunction, recall, disclosure, and destruction orders, and awarded SWARCO its costs; the invalidity defence raised by Strabag was held inadmissible because no counterclaim for revocation had been filed. SWARCO's request for publication of the judgment was refused.

Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • Strabag's traffic signal products infringe EP 2 643 717 (color-mixing convergent optical system)

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 25 UPCA

    Note: The Vienna Local Division found direct infringement and granted full injunctive relief including recall and destruction.

  • invalidity cannot be raised in proceedings where no counterclaim for revocation has been filed under R. 25 and R. 42 RoP

    ClaimantLegal basis: R. 25 RoP; R. 42 RoP

    Note: Strabag raised added-matter invalidity as a shield but had not filed a counterclaim for revocation; the court held this bars substantive consideration of the invalidity argument (Leitsatz 1).

  • permanent removal from distribution channels is an independent measure separate from recall under UPCA

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 63 UPCA

    Note: Court accepted this as a distinct remedy (Leitsatz 2), subject to the infringer having legal and factual ability to carry it out.

  • intervener who causes additional costs to the winning party should bear at least its own costs

    ClaimantLegal basis: R. 315.4 RoP (by analogy)

    Note: Court derived from R. 315.4 RoP that an intervener is treated like a party for cost purposes and must bear its own costs if the supported party loses.

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

  • publication of the judgment in trade press should be ordered

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 80 UPCA

    Reason: Under Art. 80 UPCA the court has discretion; publication is appropriate only when claimant's interests outweigh prejudice to defendant and are not already secured by other remedies; claimant did not demonstrate a concrete prevention interest.

  • patent is invalid due to added matter (Überschreitung der Ursprungsoffenbarung)

    RespondentLegal basis: R. 25 RoP; R. 42 RoP

    Reason: Because Strabag raised invalidity only as a defence without filing a counterclaim for revocation as required by R. 25 RoP, the court declined to consider the invalidity argument on the merits.

Key legal principles
Doctrines and rules cited in the reasoning.
invalidity may only be raised as a defence through a formal counterclaim for revocation under R. 25 and R. 42 RoP; bare invalidity defence without counterclaim is inadmissiblepermanent removal from distribution channels is a distinct and independent remedy from recall under Art. 63 UPCApublication of judgment under Art. 80 UPCA requires specific preventive interest; not granted automaticallyintervener bears its own costs if the supported party loses (derived from R. 315.4 RoP)

Browse other cases on this principle.

Claim construction notes

The patent claims a color-mixing convergent optical system, with disputes touching on whether Strabag's LED traffic light systems embodied the claimed convergent optics; substantive claim construction analysis is in the 27-page body not fully reproduced.