UPC CFI 461/2024
Aug 5, 2024·EP2476814 +1 more · Floor seal device, in particular attic steps with a plastic hinge
- Case details
- StatusCase Closed (Patent infringed)ActionInfringementCategoryMain infringement action
- Parties
- Claimants
- Dolle A/SOperating co.
Representatives- Sönke Scheltz-Eisenführ Speiser
- Stefan Wiethoff-Eisenführ Speiser
Respondents- FAKRO Dachflächenfenster GmbHOperating co.
- FAKRO Dachfenster GmbHOperating co.
- FAKRO Danmark A/SOperating co.
- FAKRO Sp.z.o.oOperating co.
Representatives- Julian Wachinger-rwzh Rechtsanwälte Wachinger Zoebisch Partnerschaft mbB
- Eckart Warnke-rwzh Rechtsanwälte Wachinger Zoebisch Partnerschaft mbB
- Division
- Hamburg LD
- Technology
- Other fieldsCivil engineering
- Language
- German
- First decided
- Nov 5, 2025
| Infringement found | Median days to first decision | |
|---|---|---|
| All UPC | 53% (62/117) | 124 |
| Hamburg LD | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Sabine Klepsch | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Stefan Schilling | Locked | Locked |
| Judge András Kupecz | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Uwe Ausfelder | Locked | Locked |
At the UPC: Dolle A/S (4 cases)·FAKRO Dachflächenfenster GmbH (4 cases)
This dispute contains 3 other proceedings
Start a free trial to see how each one ended.
More cases: Hamburg LD·2024
- 2025-11-05Infringement ActionPublic
Summary: Hamburg Local Division found that Fakro entities infringed Dolle A/S's European Patent EP 2 476 814 B1 (roof window with priority claim). The Court granted an injunction, recall of infringing products, removal from distribution channels, provision of information and damages assessment deferred. Fakro's counterclaim for revocation was rejected. The Court confirmed that 'the same invention' in Art. 87 EPC is interpreted by the direct-and-unambiguous disclosure standard.
Show the legal issues (5)
- Patent infringement (roof windows)
- Priority / 'same invention' (Art. 87 EPC) - direct-and-unambiguous disclosure standard
- Late filing of validity attacks at oral hearing
- Counterclaim for revocation rejected
- UPC-wide injunction
| Document title | Date | Public |
|---|---|---|
| Communication | 2026-02-05 | Not public |
| Order | 2026-02-05 | Not public |
| Order | 2026-02-05 | Not public |
| Order | 2025-12-19 | Not public |
| Order | 2025-12-19 | Not public |
| Cover sheet | 2025-12-11 | Not public |
| Application document Claimant | 2025-12-11 | Not public |
| Receipt | 2025-12-11 | Not public |
| Cover sheet | 2025-12-04 | Not public |
| Application document Claimant | 2025-12-04 | Not public |
Dolle A/S brought an infringement action at the Hamburg Local Division against FAKRO entities for infringement of EP 2 476 814 B1 (floor seal device / attic steps with plastic hinge). The court confirmed infringement, rejected FAKRO's counterclaim for revocation (including a late-raised inventive step attack barred by front-loading rules), and confirmed the 'same invention' standard under Art. 87 EPC equates to the direct-and-unambiguous derivation standard used for added matter. Defendants were ordered to pay 90% of costs; a correction order later addressed minor typographical and structural errors in the judgment.
'The same invention' standard in Art. 87 EPC corresponds to the added-matter disclosure standard (direct and unambiguous derivation)
ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 87 EPC; UPC_CFI_115/2024 (LD Düsseldorf, 15.10.2025)Note: Court confirmed priority claim is valid where the skilled person can directly and unambiguously derive the claimed subject-matter from the priority document as a whole using common general knowledge.
FAKRO products infringe EP 2 476 814 B1 (floor seal device/attic steps) as construed
ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 25 UPCANote: Court granted injunction, recall, removal from distribution channels, and information orders confirming infringement.
A term mentioned only generally in a claim cannot be restricted to a specific configuration disclosed only in cited prior art without further specification in the claim
ClaimantNote: Court rejected FAKRO's attempt to narrow a general claim term based on how it appeared in prior art cited in the patent description.
Inventive step attack based on documents already in the proceedings, raised for the first time at oral hearing
RespondentLegal basis: UPC RoP front-loaded proceedings; R. of counterclaim filingReason: All invalidity attacks must be introduced in the counterclaim for revocation; it is not permissible to raise a new lack-of-inventive-step argument based on documents already in the file for the first time at oral hearing.
Counterclaim for revocation: EP 2 476 814 B1 is invalid
RespondentLegal basis: Art. 87 EPCReason: Revocation counterclaim rejected; priority was valid under the direct-and-unambiguous standard; other validity attacks were either out of time or substantively unfounded.
Browse other cases on this principle.
Court held that a general term appearing in the claims of EP 2 476 814 B1 (floor seal/attic steps) cannot be narrowed to a configuration merely because the prior art cited in the patent describes it in a specific way; the claim text must contain the limiting language.