UPClytics
ENDE
Sign inStart trial
View all cases

UPC CFI 388/2025

Apr 30, 2025·EP4117857 Unitary patent · ROLLER SANDER

Follow
Case details
Status
Case Closed (Patent infringed)
Action
Infringement
Category
Main infringement action
Parties
Division
Hamburg LD
Judges
Technology
  • Mechanical engineering
    Machine tools
Language
German
First decided
May 6, 2026
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
Hamburg LDLockedLocked
Judge Sabine KlepschLockedLocked
Judge Stefan SchillingLockedLocked
Judge Peter AgergaardLockedLocked
Judge Max TilmannLockedLocked

At the UPC: HORL 1993 GmbH (1 case)·Magna-Tec e.K. (1 case)

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

Start a free trial to see how each one ended.

More cases: Hamburg LD·2025

Decisions
  • 2026-05-06
    Infringement ActionPublic

    Summary: 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.

    Show the legal issues (10)
    • 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 roller
    • Whether the accused Trinity-S product has a disc rotating at a different angular velocity than the running roller
    • Jurisdiction 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 accessory
    • Preliminary damages quantum under Rule 119 RoP
    • Whether a grace month (Karenzmonat) applies under UPC procedural law
    • Admissibility of new submissions after oral hearing under Rule 9 / Rule 333 RoP
Documents
Show all 152 documents
Document titleDatePublic
Other Documents2026-09-08Not public
Note2026-09-08Not public
Receipt2026-08-17Not public
Cover sheet2026-08-17Not public
Document Defendant2026-08-17Not public
Order2026-06-15Not public
Order2026-06-15Not public
Receipt2026-06-09Not public
Cover sheet2026-06-09Not public
Document Claimant2026-06-09Not 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