UPC CFI 390/2023
Oct 27, 2023·EP2867997 SEP · WIRELESS INDUCTIVE POWER TRANSFER
Action number: ACT 583273/2023
- Case details
- StatusCase Closed (Patent infringed)ActionInfringementCategoryMain infringement action
- Parties
- Respondents
- Belkin LimitedOperating co.
- Belkin International, Inc.Operating co.
- Belkin GmbHOperating co.
- Name withheld (GDPR)
- Division
- Munich LD
- Technology
- Electrical engineeringTelecommunications
- Language
- German
- First decided
- Sep 13, 2024
| Infringement found | Median days to first decision | |
|---|---|---|
| All UPC | 53% (62/117) | 124 |
| Munich LD | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Matthias Zigann | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Tobias Pichlmaier | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Edger Brinkman | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Anders Hansson | Locked | Locked |
At the UPC: Philips Group (46 cases)·Belkin Group (24 cases)
This dispute contains 14 other proceedings
UPC CoA 54/2026·UPC CFI 615/2025·UPC CFI 586/2025·UPC CFI 171/2025·UPC CFI 30/2025 and 9 more
4 other defendants litigating the same or a related patent
UPC CFI 2719/2026·UPC CFI 915/2025·UPC CFI 1871/2025·UPC CFI 524/2025
- 2024-12-18
Summary: Order imposing penalty payments of EUR 46,000 against Belkin companies for non-compliance with the court's disclosure order (accounting for infringement) in Philips v Belkin. The penalty ran at EUR 500/day for 26 days. Remaining requests by Philips were rejected. Philips bears 25% of costs; Belkin bears 75%.
Show the legal issues (3)
- Penalty payments for non-compliance (Article 82 UPCA, Rule 354 RoP)
- Disclosure/accounting order enforcement
- Electronic versus paper disclosure
- 2024-09-13Infringement ActionPublic
Summary: Munich Local Division found Belkin GmbH, Belkin International Inc., and Belkin Limited liable for infringement of Philips' EP 2 867 997 B1 (wireless power transfer technology) and dismissed the counterclaims for revocation. An injunction was granted against Belkin's infringing acts outside Germany (German acts excluded due to opt-out/national proceedings). Defendants were ordered to provide information, recall products, pay EUR 119,000 interim damages, and cover approximately 5/6 of costs. The revocation counterclaims were dismissed. (German territorial acts were carved out from the injunction as a separate matter.)
Show the legal issues (5)
- Patent infringement of wireless power transfer technology
- Revocation counterclaim dismissed
- Scope of injunction and territorial carve-out for Germany
- Liability of company directors as intermediaries under Art. 63(1) UPCA
- Patent infringer as manufacturer/seller under UPCA
| Document title | Date | Public |
|---|---|---|
| Order | 2026-10-05 | Not public |
| Order | 2026-10-05 | Not public |
| Note | 2026-10-05 | Not public |
| Receipt | 2026-10-01 | Not public |
| Cover sheet | 2026-10-01 | Not public |
| Application document Defendant | 2026-10-01 | Not public |
| workflow geschlossen | 2025-07-22 | Public |
| workflow geschlossen | 2025-07-22 | Public |
| workflow geschlossen | 2025-07-22 | Public |
| workflow geschlossen | 2025-07-22 | Public |
Koninklijke Philips N.V. obtained a merits judgment against Belkin GmbH, Belkin International Inc., and Belkin Limited at the Munich Local Division for infringement of EP 2 867 997 B1 (wireless power transfer technology). The court upheld the patent against revocation counterclaims and granted an injunction, recall, information order, and EUR 119,000 interim damages for acts outside Germany (German acts excluded due to opt-out). Orders were also issued against Belkin's corporate officers as intermediaries under Art. 63(1)(2) UPCA. Late-filed prior art document D7 was excluded from the proceedings.
Protection sought from description and drawings can only be claim subject-matter if expressed in the claim
ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 69 EPCNote: Munich LD confirmed that scope of protection is determined by claim language; broader description content does not expand the claim.
Where description presents multiple embodiments as belonging to the invention, claim terms must be understood broadly enough to encompass all embodiments
ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 69 EPCNote: Court held that if multiple embodiments are presented as inventive, terms in the claim must be interpreted to cover all of them.
Infringer is the party who acts as manufacturer/offeror or who creates the impression for the relevant market that it manufactures/distributes goods in its own name and for its own account
ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 25 UPCANote: Court applied this test to identify liable Belkin entities as direct infringers.
Order against corporate officers (as intermediaries) available where company infringes
ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 63(1)(2) UPCANote: Court issued orders against Belkin GmbH's CEO and Belkin Limited's directors in their capacity as intermediaries.
D7 (new prior art) submitted with written submission of 15 March 2024 admitted to revocation proceedings
RespondentReason: D7 and related submissions were not admitted into the proceedings.
Revocation counterclaims — patent invalid
RespondentLegal basis: Art. 138 EPCReason: Revocation counterclaims dismissed in their entirety.
Browse other cases on this principle.
- D7 (unspecified late-filed document)Obviousness combination
The Munich LD applied Art. 69 EPC claim construction: protection extends only to what is expressed in the claim; description and drawings inform but do not expand claim scope. Where the description presents multiple embodiments as inventive, claim terms are interpreted in the widest sense consistent with covering all such embodiments. The infringement finding covered Belkin's wireless power transfer products outside Germany (German acts carved out). Belkin's corporate officers were ordered as intermediaries.