UPClytics
EnglishDeutsch
Sign inSign up
View all cases

UPC CFI 388/2025

Apr 30, 2025·EP4117857 +1 more: ROLLER SANDER

Case details
Status
Oral Phase
Action
Infringement
Category
Main Infringement Action
Parties
Claimants
Reps: Sebastian Ochs (Grünecker Patent- und Rechtsanwälte PartGmbH); Björn-Alexander Bockelmann (Grünecker Patent- und Rechtsanwälte PartGmbH); Christian Meisinger (Grünecker Patent- und Rechtsanwälte PartGmbH)
Respondents
Reps: Eckart Warnke (rwzh Rechtsanwälte Wachinger Zoebisch Partnerschaft mbB); Stephan Höfs (rwzh Rechtsanwälte Wachinger Zoebisch Partnerschaft mbB)
Division
Hamburg LD
Judges
Technology
Consumer Goods · Hand Tools
Language
German
First decided
May 6, 2026
Claims
At issue1, 3, 9, 10, 14
Infringed1, 14
Notes: Claims 3, 9, and 10 were asserted only as 'insbesondere' (in particular) sub-requests; the court granted the injunction covering claim 1 including those sub-claims without separately ruling on each subordinate claim. The infringement finding for claim 14 (system claim) followed from the finding on claim 1.
Decisions
  • 2026-05-06
    InfringedInjunction grantedInfringement meritsInfringement Action

    The Local Division Hamburg found that Magna-Tec e.K. directly infringed claims 1 and 14 of EP 4 117 857 B1 with its "Trinity-S" knife-sharpening device. The court granted an injunction (limited to UPC contracting member states), ordered recall from commercial customers, destruction, disclosure/accounting, and publication of the judgment in the MESSER MAGAZIN; claims relating to non-UPCA countries (Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Spain, Ireland, Norway, Turkey, UK) were dismissed for lack of factual pleading. Preliminary damages of EUR 3,000 were awarded (reduced from the EUR 41,000 claimed) and the defendant was ordered to pay two-thirds of the costs.

    Legal issues:Direct infringement of claims 1 and 14 (rolling grinder device)Claim construction: whether 'Laufrolle' in claim 1 refers only to the roller kinematically associated with the disc or any rollerWhether the accused Trinity-S product has a disc rotating at a different angular velocity than the running rollerJurisdiction and pleading requirements for infringement in non-UPCA countries (Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Spain, Ireland, Norway, Turkey, UK)Scope of recall order (commercial vs. all customers)Right to publication of judgment (Art. 80 UPCA)Proportionality of recall and destruction orders for a system comprising both an infringing device and a non-infringing blade-fixation accessoryPreliminary damages quantum under Rule 119 RoPWhether a grace month (Karenzmonat) applies under UPC procedural lawAdmissibility of new submissions after oral hearing under Rule 9 / Rule 333 RoP
    Damages: 3,000
Documents
Document titleDatePublic
Receipt2026-06-02Not public
Cover sheet2026-06-02Not public
Application document Defendant2026-06-02Not public
Receipt2026-05-27Not public
Cover sheet2026-05-27Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-05-27Not public
Application document Claimant2026-05-27Not public
Receipt2026-05-22Not public
Cover sheet2026-05-22Not public
Application document Claimant2026-05-22Not public
action.publishOrderDecision.decision2026-05-13Not public
action.phaseChange.caseClose2026-05-06Not public
action.issueDecision.decision2026-05-06Not public
Decision2026-05-06Public
action.communication.general2026-04-30Not public
Receipt2026-04-28Not public
Cover sheet2026-04-28Not public
Document Claimant2026-04-28Not public
action.communication.general2026-04-24Not public
Receipt2026-04-24Not public
Cover sheet2026-04-24Not public
Fee2026-04-24Not public
Proof of payment2026-04-24Not public
Application document Defendant2026-04-24Not public
action.issueOrder.order2026-04-20Not public
Order2026-04-20Not public
Receipt2026-04-20Not public
Cover sheet2026-04-20Not public
Document2026-04-20Not public
action.communication.general2026-04-16Not public
Receipt2026-04-15Not public
Cover sheet2026-04-15Not public
Application document Defendant2026-04-15Not public
Other Documents2026-04-09Not public
Other Documents2026-04-09Not public
Receipt2026-03-27Not public
Cover sheet2026-03-27Not public
Application document Defendant2026-03-27Not public
Hearing recording reference document2026-03-20Not public
action.phaseChange.oralPhaseOpen2026-03-19Not public
Receipt2026-03-17Not public
Cover sheet2026-03-17Not public
Submission Defendant2026-03-17Not public
Receipt2026-03-17Not public
Cover sheet2026-03-17Not public
Submission Claimant2026-03-17Not public
action.issueOrder.order2026-03-16Not public
Order2026-03-16Not public
action.summons.oralHearing2026-01-07Not public
Order2026-01-07Not public
Cover sheet2025-11-11Not public
Statement of rejoinder2025-11-11Not public
Receipt2025-11-11Not public
Cover sheet2025-10-29Not public
Other document2025-10-29Not public
Receipt2025-10-29Not public
Cover sheet2025-10-24Not public
Other document2025-10-24Not public
Receipt2025-10-24Not public
action.communication.general2025-10-24Not public
action.issueOrder.order2025-10-23Not public
Order2025-10-23Not public
Cover sheet2025-10-13Not public
Exhibit2025-10-13Not public
Statement of reply2025-10-13Not public
Receipt2025-10-13Not public
Cover sheet2025-10-09Not public
Other document2025-10-09Not public
Receipt2025-10-09Not public
action.issueOrder.order2025-10-02Not public
Order2025-10-02Not public
Formal-checks_Notification-of-positive-outcome2025-08-12Not public
Receipt2025-08-12Not public
Receipt2025-08-12Not public
Acknowledgement-of-lodging2025-08-12Not public
Schriftsatz zu Paketsendung2025-08-12Not public
Einlieferungsbeleg2025-08-12Not public
Antrag auf Nehmen von Beweismitteln zur Akte2025-08-12Not public
Antrag auf Zuweisung eines technischen Richters2025-08-12Not public
Anlage KW52025-08-12Not public
Anlage KW12025-08-12Not public
Anlage KW42025-08-12Not public
Klageerwiderung2025-08-12Not public
Anlage KW82025-08-12Not public
Anlage KW72025-08-12Not public
Anlage KW22025-08-12Not public
Notification Of Service2025-05-28Not public
Zustellung2025-05-28Not public
Zustellung2025-05-28Not public
Acknowledgement of access to case2025-05-23Not public
Document from EPO2025-05-07Not public
communicationCheck2025-05-07Not public
Document from EPO2025-05-07Not public
communicationCheck2025-05-07Not public
Document from EPO2025-05-07Not public
communicationCheck2025-05-07Not public
Document from EPO2025-05-07Not public
Panel-Appointment2025-05-05Not public
Panel-Appointment2025-05-05Not public
Letter-for-Service2025-05-05Not public
Panel-Appointment2025-05-05Not public
EPO-Request-for-case-pending2025-05-05Not public
Receipt2025-05-05Not public
Formal-checks_Notification-of-positive-outcome2025-05-05Not public
Anlage GRU 122025-04-30Not public
Anlage GRU 22025-04-30Not public
Anlage GRU 42025-04-30Not public
Anlage GRU 62025-04-30Not public
Anlage GRU 32025-04-30Not public
Anlage GRU 102025-04-30Not public
Klage2025-04-30Not public
Stellungnahme re. Formerfordernisse2025-04-30Not public
Anlage GRU 72025-04-30Not public
Anlage GRU 52025-04-30Not public
Anlage GRU 82025-04-30Not public
Anlage GRU 12025-04-30Not public
Anlage GRU 92025-04-30Not public
Anlage GRU 112025-04-30Not public
Formal-checks_Request-for-correction2025-04-30Not public
Acknowledgement-of-lodging2025-04-30Not public
Anlage GRU 72025-04-30Not public
Anlage GRU 102025-04-30Not public
Anlage GRU 12025-04-30Not public
Anlage GRU 62025-04-30Not public
Klage2025-04-30Not public
Anlage GRU 92025-04-30Not public
Anlage GRU 112025-04-30Not public
Anlage GRU 52025-04-30Not public
Anlage GRU 22025-04-30Not public
Anlage GRU 32025-04-30Not public
Anlage GRU 82025-04-30Not public
Anlage GRU 42025-04-30Not public
Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • The claim term 'die Laufrolle' does not require a specific kinematic coupling to the disc; any roller of the device satisfying the remaining claim features suffices, so the accused Trinity-S (which has a small roller and a large disc rotating at different angular velocities) meets feature 4 of claim 1.

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 69 EPC; Protocol on Interpretation of Art. 69 EPC

  • The accused product also infringes system claim 14 because the defendant's only non-infringement argument for claim 14 depended on the (rejected) non-infringement argument for claim 1.

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 25(a) UPCA

  • The claimant has a legitimate interest in publication of the judgment because the defendant compared and negatively described the claimant's product on its website and positively promoted the infringing product in the MESSER MAGAZIN.

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 80 UPCA

  • Claims relating to non-UPCA countries (Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Spain, Ireland, Norway, Turkey, UK) must be dismissed because the claimant failed to plead sufficient concrete facts to enable the court to assess infringement under the national law of each country.

    RespondentLegal basis: lex loci protectionis; Art. 34 UPCA
Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.

  • The disc must rotate at a different angular velocity from the roller that is kinematically associated with it (i.e., the roller directly coupled to the disc); because the disc and its associated roller 22 are rigidly connected, there is no difference in angular velocity between them.

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 69 EPC

  • The disclosure request should only be made to the claimant's lawyers, not to the claimant directly, on grounds of confidentiality.

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 67 UPCA; R. 191 RoP

  • Recall and destruction of the entire system (device + blade-fixation accessory) is disproportionate because the accessory can be used without infringing the patent.

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 64(4) UPCA

  • The preliminary damages award should be subject to the claimant providing security of 120% of the amount to be enforced.

    RespondentLegal basis: R. 119 RoP; R. 352.1 RoP

  • A grace month (Karenzmonat) must be granted before compliance periods for recall, destruction, and disclosure begin to run.

    RespondentLegal basis: German national patent law analogy

  • The defendant should be allowed to submit a further brief responding to allegedly new evidence (Annex GRU 10 video) shown at the oral hearing.

    RespondentLegal basis: R. 9 RoP; R. 333 RoP