UPClytics
ENDE
Sign inStart trial
View all cases

UPC CFI 414/2025

EP3296274 · FINING OF BOROALUMINO SILICATE GLASSES

Follow
Case details
Status
Patent infringed
Action
Infringement
Category
Main infringement action
Parties
Claimants
Representatives
Respondents
Representatives
Division
Mannheim LD
Judges
Technology
  • Chemistry
    Materials, metallurgy
  • Mechanical engineering
    Other special machines
Language
—
First decided
Oct 3, 2025
Last decision
Apr 16, 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
Mannheim LDLockedLocked
Judge Peter TochtermannLockedLocked
Judge Tobias SenderLockedLocked
Judge Petri RinkinenLockedLocked
Judge Rudi GoedeweeckLockedLocked

At the UPC: Corning Incorporated (19 cases)·TCL Group (35 cases)

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

This dispute contains 8 other proceedings

UPC CFI 1766/2026·UPC CFI 1727/2026·UPC CoA 424/2025·UPC CFI 819/2024·UPC APP 17158/2025 and 3 more

6 other defendants litigating the same or a related patent

UPC CoA 38/2026·UPC CFI 866/2025·UPC CFI 416/2025·UPC CFI 337/2025·UPC CFI 775/2026 and 1 more

Start a free trial to see how each one ended.

More cases: Mannheim LD·2025

Decisions
  • 2026-04-16
    Counterclaim for revocationPublic

    Summary: The infringement action against Defendants 1-3 (TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, TCL Deutschland Verwaltungs GmbH, and TCL Operations Polska) was predominantly successful: they were found to directly infringe claim 1 of EP 3 296 274 and are subject to injunction, recall, removal, destruction, and information obligations. The infringement action against Defendant 4 (TCL Belgium, SA) was dismissed for lack of demonstrated operational control over the infringing subsidiary. The counterclaim for revocation was dismissed in its entirety, with the patent maintained as granted.

    Show the legal issues (12)
    • Direct infringement of claim 1 (method for producing alkali-free glass sheets by downdraw process) and claim 3 (dependent SnO2 concentration)
    • Counterclaim for revocation: added matter (Art. 138(1)(c) EPC / Art. 123(2) EPC)
    • Counterclaim for revocation: sufficiency of disclosure (Art. 138(1)(b) EPC)
    • Counterclaim for revocation: novelty over WO 2006/115997 A2 and WO 02/098810 A1 (Art. 138(1)(a) EPC / Art. 54 EPC)
    • Counterclaim for revocation: inventive step starting from US 2002/0082158 A1, JP 2004-189535A, JP 2001-348247A (Art. 138(1)(a) EPC / Art. 56 EPC)
    • Liability of parent holding company (Defendant 4) for infringing acts of subsidiary (Defendant 3)
    • Patent exhaustion in relation to glass sheets supplied by Corning or its licensees
    • Proportionality of permanent injunction (Art. 63(1) UPCA, Art. 42 UPCA)
    • Scope of infringement action: restriction to specific TV models or suppliers
    • Admissibility of interim award on costs (Art. 69(1) UPCA, R. 150(2) RoP)
    • Publication of decision (Art. 80 UPCA)
    • Enforcement security (Art. 82(2) UPCA)
Documents
  • 2026-04-16%20-%20Final%20Decision_redacted_signed_TS_RG%2BPR%20%284%29.pdf2026-04-16EN
Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • Chemical analyses (XRF and ICP) of TCL 32L5A TVs purchased for the German market confirmed that glass sheets in tested LCD-panels have a composition falling within claim 1 of the patent-in-suit, establishing infringement by Defendants 1-3.

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 25(a) UPCA; claim 1 of EP 3 296 274

  • Risk of further infringement is presumed from established past infringement and is not rebutted absent a cease-and-desist declaration with contractual penalty clause.

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 63(1) UPCA; CoA UPC_CoA_789/2025 (Dyson v Dreame)

  • The subject-matter of claim 1 does not extend beyond the content of the original/earlier application as filed; added matter ground rejected.

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 138(1)(c) EPC; Art. 123(2) EPC

  • Patent is disclosed sufficiently clearly and completely; sufficiency ground rejected.

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 138(1)(b) EPC; Art. 83 EPC

  • Claim 1 is novel over WO'997 and WO'810 and involves inventive step over US'158, JP'535 and JP'247; all invalidity attacks dismissed.

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 138(1)(a) EPC; Art. 54, 56 EPC

  • Injunction is not disproportionate given Defendants can source glass sheets from licensed suppliers and patent only has a short remaining term.

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 63(1) UPCA; Art. 42 UPCA; Art. 3(2) Enforcement Directive
Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.

  • TCL Belgium (Defendant 4) exercised operational control over TCL Operations Polska (Defendant 3) and is therefore liable for Defendant 3's infringement.

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 25(a) UPCA

  • Chemical analyses of US market samples (EDS) were sufficient to establish infringement in Germany and that US and European models are identical.

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 25(a) UPCA

  • All current LCD-TVs produced by Defendants for the German market do not infringe the patent-in-suit, rebutting risk of repetition.

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 63(1) UPCA

  • Injunction should be restricted to specific TV models or LCD-panel suppliers.

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 62(1) UPCA; Art. 25(a) UPCA

  • Permanent injunction is disproportionate (reference to public interest and supply chain concerns).

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 63(1) UPCA; Art. 42 UPCA

  • Enforcement of the decision should be made dependent on provision of a security of at least EUR 5,000,000.

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 82(2) UPCA; R. 352.1, 354.1 RoP

  • Interim award of damages/costs of EUR 150,000 should be granted.

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 68 UPCA; R. 119 RoP

  • Publication of the decision in public media should be permitted at Defendants' expense.

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 80 UPCA