UPClytics
EnglishDeutsch
Sign inSign up
View all cases

UPC CFI 414/2025

—·EP3296274: FINING OF BOROALUMINO SILICATE GLASSES

Case details
Status
—
Action
Infringement
Category
Main Infringement Action
Parties
Claimants
Reps: Marcus Grosch
Division
Mannheim LD
Judges
Language
—
First decided
Dec 5, 2025
Last decision
Apr 16, 2026
Claims
At issue1, 3
Maintained1, 3
Infringed1
Notes: Claim 1 found infringed by Defendants 1-3. Claim 3 (dependent; SnO2 ≤ 0.15 mol%) was covered by the injunction as a subset of claim 1 without a separate operative order. Counterclaim for revocation of the entire patent (German and French parts) dismissed; patent maintained as granted. Defendant 4 not found to infringe.
Decisions
  • 2026-04-16
    InfringedInjunction grantedRevocation meritsCounterclaim for revocation

    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.

    Legal issues: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 licenseesProportionality of permanent injunction (Art. 63(1) UPCA, Art. 42 UPCA)Scope of infringement action: restriction to specific TV models or suppliersAdmissibility 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