UPC CFI 351/2024

Jul 1, 2024·EP3686683 Unitary patent · DEVELOPER REPLENISHING CONTAINER AND DEVELOPER REPLENISHING SYSTEM

Case details: Status
Case Closed (Patent infringed)
Action
Infringement
Category
Main infringement action
Parties: Claimants
Canon Kabushiki KaishaOperating co.
Representatives
Boris Kreye-Bird & Bird LLP
Anika Boche-Bird & Bird LLP
Lukas Wosnitza-Bird & Bird LLP
Rainer Böckelensupporting-TBK
Tobias Schobsupporting-TBK
Respondents
Katun Germany GmbHOperating co.
Katun (E.D.C.) B.V.Operating co.
Katun CorporationOperating co.
General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd.Operating co.
Representatives
Thure Schubert-Vossius & Partner
Mattias Jentsch-Vossius & Partner
Arnold Asmussen-Vossius & Partner
Axel Leins-Vossius & Partner
Luisa Huber-Vossius & Partner
Division: Dusseldorf LD
Judges: Ronny Thomas
Jule Schumacher
Marije Knijff
Stefanie Philipps
Technology: Instruments
Optics
Language: English
First decided: Nov 20, 2025
Last decision: Feb 11, 2026
EPO Opposition: Katun Germany GmbHAdmissible2024-12-13
Katun (E.D.C.) B.V.Admissible2024-12-13
Katun CorporationAdmissible2024-12-13
General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd.Admissible2024-12-13

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 found	Median days to first decision
All UPC	53% (62/117)	124
Dusseldorf LD	Locked	Locked
Judge Ronny Thomas	Locked	Locked
Judge Jule Schumacher	Locked	Locked
Judge Marije Knijff	Locked	Locked
Judge Stefanie Philipps	Locked	Locked

At the UPC: Canon Kabushiki Kaisha (2 cases)·Katun Germany GmbH (2 cases)

Start 14-day free trialAlready a user? Sign in

Related cases

All proceedings on this patent

This dispute contains 1 other proceedings

UPC CFI 595/2024

Start a free trial to see how each one ended.

More cases: Dusseldorf LD·2024

Decisions

2026-02-11
Infringement ActionPublic
Summary: The Düsseldorf Local Division found Canon's developer supply container patent EP 3 686 683 infringed by Katun and General Plastic entities, granting an injunction and ordering defendants to publish the operative part of the decision on their websites; the counterclaim for revocation was dismissed.
Show the legal issues (3)
- Patent infringement (developer supply container)
- Counterclaim for revocation dismissed
- Publication of decision on defendant's website (Art. 80 UPCA)
2025-12-29
Infringement ActionPublic
Summary: The Düsseldorf Local Division addressed Canon's request for simultaneous interpretation from English into Japanese during the oral hearing, for corporate representatives joining remotely from Japan.
Show the legal issues (2)
- Request for simultaneous interpretation (R. 109 RoP)
- Remote participation by Japanese corporate representatives
2025-12-10
Public
Summary: The Düsseldorf Local Division issued a post-interim-conference order in the Canon v. Katun proceedings, setting the feature breakdown of claim 1 of EP 3 686 683 to be used at the oral hearing.
Show the legal issues (2)
- Post-interim-conference order (R. 105.5 RoP)
- Feature breakdown of patent claim
2025-11-20
Public
Summary: The Düsseldorf Local Division granted Canon's application for a further round of written pleadings under R. 36 RoP against Katun, to address the EPO Opposition Division's preliminary opinion and additional test purchases of allegedly infringing toner cartridge products.
Show the legal issues (3)
- R. 36 RoP further pleadings based on new evidence
- EPO preliminary opinion
- Additional test purchases - new model numbers
2025-06-12
Public
Summary: Procedural order in Canon v. Katun/General Plastic infringement action. The Düsseldorf Local Division decided under R. 37.2 RoP to proceed jointly with both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation (Art. 33(3)(a) UPCA) for reasons of efficiency, allowing validity and infringement to be decided on a unified factual record.
Show the legal issues (2)
- Joint hearing of infringement action and counterclaim for revocation under Art. 33(3)(a) UPCA
- Early decision on procedural approach under R. 37.2 RoP

Documents

Show all 316 documents

Document title	Date	Public
Communication	2026-09-09	Not public
Order	2026-05-04	Not public
Order	2026-05-04	Public
Order	2026-04-30	Not public
Order	2026-04-30	Public
Receipt	2026-03-12	Not public
Cover sheet	2026-03-12	Not public
Exhibit Defendant	2026-03-12	Not public
Exhibit Defendant	2026-03-12	Not public
Application document Defendant	2026-03-12	Not public

Coverage: Partial.Reasoning extracted with partial coverage — some sections may be incomplete.

Plain-English summary

Canon Kabushiki Kaisha (Japan) sued Katun Germany GmbH, Katun (E.D.C.) B.V., Katun Corporation (US), and General Plastic Industrial Co. (Taiwan) for infringement of EP 3 686 683 B1, a patent for a developer (toner) supply container for printers. The Düsseldorf Local Division found the patent valid and infringed, dismissed the defendants' revocation counterclaim, and granted a pan-European injunction; notably, the court ordered defendants to publish the operative part of the judgment on their websites because they had used those websites to assert non-infringement.

Accepted arguments

What the court agreed with — by party.

Defendants (Katun/General Plastic) infringe EP 3 686 683 B1 by supplying compatible toner cartridges
ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 25 UPCA
Note: Court found infringement of Canon's developer supply container patent and granted an injunction plus publication of the decision on defendants' websites.
Defendants used their website to create impression of non-infringement, justifying mandatory website publication of decision
ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 80 UPCA
Note: Court held that where a defendant has actively used its website to deny infringement, requiring it to publish the operative part of the judgment on that website is justified under Art. 80 UPCA.

Rejected arguments

What the court did not agree with — and why.

Patent EP 3 686 683 B1 is invalid (counterclaim for revocation)
RespondentLegal basis: Art. 54, 56 EPC
Reason: Counterclaim for revocation dismissed in full.
Additional test-purchase evidence should be admitted as further pleading under R. 36 RoP
ClaimantLegal basis: R. 36 RoP
Reason: Test purchase was conducted in October 2024 before the deadline for the reply to the statement of defence; claimant was obliged to act without delay and include the results in the reply rather than seeking a later further round.

Key legal principles

Doctrines and rules cited in the reasoning.

Where a defendant uses its website to deny infringement, mandatory publication of the judgment on the defendant's website is justified under Art. 80 UPCA R. 36 RoP further pleading admission requires timely explanation for why evidence could not have been filed earlier EPO preliminary opposition opinion may be submitted as publicly available information, but parties cannot expand their arguments around it without R. 36 permission Feature breakdown of patent claims to be used at oral hearing to be communicated to parties in advance

Browse other cases on this principle.

Claim construction notes

The court adopted a detailed feature breakdown of claim 1 of EP 3 686 683 B1 (developer supply container), dividing the claim into features 1.1-1.6.2 including the moving mechanism (feature 1.6) and its sub-features: upward movement of supporting portion while supporting the supported portion (1.6.1) to bring receiving opening into communication with discharge opening during mounting operation (1.6.2). Claims 5 and 6 were also broken down regarding guiding means and rib/holding portion.