UPClytics
ENDE
Sign inStart trial
View all cases

UPC CFI 386/2024

Jul 3, 2024·EP2432351 · SYSTEM FOR SECURING SHELF ACCESSORIES TO A SHELF

Action number: ACT 39810/2024

Follow
Case details
Status
Case Closed (Patent infringed)
Action
Infringement
Category
Main infringement action
Parties
Claimants
Representatives
Respondents
Representatives
Division
The Hague LD
Judges
Technology
  • Other fields
    Consumer products
Language
English
First decided
Aug 15, 2025
Last decision
Oct 10, 2025
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
The Hague LDLockedLocked
Judge Edger BrinkmanLockedLocked
Judge Mélanie BessaudLockedLocked
Judge Margot KokkeLockedLocked
Judge Koen CallewaertLockedLocked

At the UPC: HL Display AB (6 cases)·Black Sheep Retail Products B.V. (6 cases)

Start 14-day free trialAlready a user? Sign in
Related cases
All proceedings on this patent

This dispute contains 5 other proceedings

UPC CoA 897/2025·UPC CoA 895/2025·UPC CoA 896/2025·UPC CFI 610/2024·UPC APP 26908/2025

Start a free trial to see how each one ended.

More cases: The Hague LD·2024

Decisions
  • 2025-10-10
    Infringement ActionPublic

    Summary: The Hague Local Division found HL Display's European Patent EP 2 432 351 B1 (shelf divider system) valid and infringed (including indirect infringement) by Black Sheep Retail Products. The Court granted an injunction, ordered BSRP to cease infringing activities across all territories where the patent is in force. A counterclaim for declaration of non-infringement regarding a revised product was declared inadmissible. Long-arm jurisdiction was established for sales outside the Netherlands.

    Show the legal issues (6)
    • Patent infringement (shelf accessories/dividers)
    • Indirect infringement
    • Validity - added matter and inventive step
    • Counterclaim for declaration of non-infringement (admissibility, R. 61 RoP)
    • Long-arm jurisdiction
    • UPC-wide injunction
  • 2025-08-21
    Public

    Summary: The Hague Local Division dismissed Black Sheep Retail Products B.V.'s application to submit two physical objects (its old product and a new product) as exhibits in support of its rejoinder in infringement proceedings brought by HL Display AB concerning EP 2 432 351. The court found no explanation had been provided for why the objects could not have been filed earlier, notably with the Statement of Defence.

    Show the legal issues (3)
    • Admission of late physical exhibits
    • Timeliness of evidence (R. 50 RoP)
    • Infringement action and counterclaim for revocation
  • 2025-08-15
    Infringement ActionPublic

    Summary: The Hague Local Division issued a procedural order under Rule 105.5 RoP following an interim conference, addressing scheduling, use of visual aids, and appointment of a technical judge for the oral hearing in an infringement action regarding EP 2 432 351.

    Show the legal issues (2)
    • Scheduling of oral hearing (R. 105.5 RoP)
    • Appointment of technical judge
Documents
Show all 202 documents
Document titleDatePublic
Receipt2026-02-23Not public
Cover sheet2026-02-23Not public
Application document Claimant2026-02-23Not public
Receipt2026-01-12Not public
Cover sheet2026-01-12Not public
Application document Claimant2026-01-12Not public
Cover sheet2025-12-03Not public
Application document Defendant2025-12-03Not public
Other document Defendant2025-12-03Not public
Receipt2025-12-03Not public
Coverage: Partial.Reasoning extracted with partial coverage — some sections may be incomplete.
Plain-English summary

HL Display AB (Sweden) successfully sued Black Sheep Retail Products B.V. (Netherlands) for infringement of EP 2 432 351 B1, a patent for a shelf-divider securing system. The Hague Local Division found the patent valid (dismissing BSRP's revocation counterclaim on added matter and inventive step) and directly and indirectly infringed by BSRP Product 1, granting a pan-European injunction. BSRP's counterclaim for a declaration of non-infringement of a revised product was declared inadmissible for lack of a prior infringement assertion.

Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • Patent EP 2 432 351 B1 is valid over added matter and inventive step attacks

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 65 UPCA; Art. 54, 56 EPC

    Note: Court upheld the patent's validity, rejecting challenges based on added matter and lack of inventive step raised in the counterclaim for revocation.

  • BSRP Product 1 directly infringes claim 1 of EP 2 432 351 B1

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 25 UPCA

    Note: Court found all claim features present in BSRP Product 1 after claim construction.

  • Indirect infringement: BSRP supplies shelf accessories that are essential means relating to the invention

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 26 UPCA

    Note: Court found indirect infringement in the supply of shelf accessory components for use in the infringing system.

  • Long-arm jurisdiction established for BSRP's sales outside the Netherlands

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 31 UPCA

    Note: Court accepted long-arm jurisdiction enabling it to order cessation of infringing acts in all UPC territories where the patent is in force.

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

  • Counterclaim for declaration of non-infringement of revised product (new product 2) is admissible

    RespondentLegal basis: R. 61.1 RoP

    Reason: Admissibility of a declaration of non-infringement requires prior written assertion of infringement or a refusal to acknowledge non-infringement (R. 61.1 RoP); mere invocation of the patent against a different product is insufficient, and failure to respond within 30 days to the counterclaim itself does not trigger R. 61.1(b) RoP.

  • Patent lacks inventive step / contains added matter (counterclaim for revocation)

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 54, 56 EPC

    Reason: Counterclaim for revocation was dismissed in full; the patent was found valid.

  • Application to deposit three further physical objects (BB40A-C) as late exhibits

    RespondentLegal basis: R. 170 RoP

    Reason: No explanation given for why the objects could not have been filed earlier (with the statement of defence); request refused by judge-rapporteur.

Key legal principles
Doctrines and rules cited in the reasoning.
Declaration of non-infringement requires prior assertion of infringement or rejection of a written acknowledgment request (R. 61.1 RoP)Counterclaim for declaration of non-infringement inadmissible where no prior assertion of infringement for the specific productR. 61.1(b) RoP does not apply merely because the patent holder fails to respond to the counterclaim within 30 daysIndirect infringement under Art. 26 UPCA extends to supply of essential means for putting the invention into effectLong-arm jurisdiction covers infringing activities in territories beyond the local division's member state

Browse other cases on this principle.

Claim construction notes

The court construed the stop-face mechanism of claim 1 of EP 2 432 351 B1 (shelf securing system): 'first stop face' = forward-facing surface of the first arm; 'second stop face' = rearward-facing surface of the rear engagement member disposed in front of the front end of the third arm. Mutual overlapping in the vertical direction achieved by rotating the shelf accessory. BSRP Product 1 was found to embody all these structural features.