UPC CFI 50/2024
Feb 7, 2024·EP3356109 · FOAM RESIN STRUCTURAL PART FOR A FRAME OF A VEHICLE AND PRODUCTION METHOD THEREFOR
Action number: ACT 6665/2024
- Case details
- StatusCase Closed (Patent infringed)ActionInfringementCategoryMain infringement action
- Parties
- Claimants
- Name withheld (GDPR)
- Yellow Sphere Innovations GmbHOperating co.
Representatives- Dirk Jestaedt-Krieger Mes & Graf von der Groeben
- Rüdiger Balssupporting-Bals & Vogel Patentanwälte PartG mbB
Respondents- Knaus Tabbert AGOperating co.
Representatives- Rüdiger Pansch-rospatt Rechtsanwälte PartGmbB
- Simon Klopschinski-rospatt Rechtsanwälte PartGmbB
- Oliver Schneidersupporting-advotec.
- Eugen Tuscherersupporting-advotec.
- Division
- Dusseldorf LD
- Technology
- Mechanical engineeringOther special machines
- Language
- German
- First decided
- Apr 10, 2025
| Infringement found | Median days to first decision | |
|---|---|---|
| All UPC | 53% (62/117) | 124 |
| Dusseldorf LD | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Ronny Thomas | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Edger Brinkman | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Berenice Thom | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Graham Ashley | Locked | Locked |
At the UPC: Yellow Sphere Innovations GmbH (9 cases)·Knaus Tabbert AG (8 cases)
This dispute contains 7 other proceedings
UPC CoA 157/2026·UPC CoA 413/2025·UPC CFI 411/2025·UPC CFI 368/2025·UPC CoA 365/2025 and 2 more
1 other defendants litigating the same or a related patent
Start a free trial to see how each one ended.
More cases: Dusseldorf LD·2024
- 2025-04-10Infringement ActionPublic
Summary: Final decision on the merits from the Düsseldorf Local Division (UPC_CFI_50/2024) delivered on 10 April 2025. The Court found that Knaus Tabbert AG infringed EP 3 356 109 B1 (product-by-process claims relating to a structural component) and granted an injunction, recall from distribution channels, definitive removal, and destruction of infringing products. The revocation counterclaim was dismissed. Provisional damages of EUR 100,000 were awarded, with further damages to be determined. The revocation counterclaim and third-party counterclaim were dismissed. Costs were apportioned 75% to Knaus Tabbert and 12.5% each to the claimants.
Show the legal issues (6)
- Product-by-process claims
- Infringement
- Revocation counterclaim dismissed
- Third-party counterclaim dismissed
- Compensation for pre-grant use (Art. 67 EPC)
- Damages
| Document title | Date | Public |
|---|---|---|
| Communication | 2026-10-15 | Not public |
| Receipt | 2026-10-15 | Not public |
| Cover sheet | 2026-10-15 | Not public |
| Document Claimant | 2026-10-15 | Not public |
| Communication | 2026-10-07 | Not public |
| Receipt | 2026-10-07 | Not public |
| Cover sheet | 2026-10-07 | Not public |
| Application document Claimant | 2026-10-07 | Not public |
| Receipt | 2026-09-22 | Not public |
| Cover sheet | 2026-09-22 | Not public |
Erwin Härtwich and Yellow Sphere Innovations GmbH sued Knaus Tabbert AG before the Düsseldorf Local Division for infringement of EP 3 356 109 B1, a product-by-process patent for a foam resin structural part used in vehicle frames. The court found infringement, granted an injunction, ordered recall and removal from distribution channels, destruction of infringing products, and awarded EUR 100,000 in preliminary damages, while dismissing both the revocation counterclaim and the third-party counterclaim. The court also held that UPC jurisdiction covers Art. 67 EPC compensation for use during the patent application's publication period.
Product-by-process claims cover products with the technical properties conferred by the specified manufacturing process, regardless of how the infringer manufactures the product
ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 25 UPCA; German patent law on product-by-process claimsNote: The court held that the decisive question for product-by-process claims is how the skilled person understands the manufacturing process indications and what conclusions they draw for the technical properties of the resulting product; Knaus Tabbert's structural foam components were found to embody these properties.
UPC has jurisdiction over compensation for use of published EP application (Art. 67 EPC period)
ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 32(1)(f) UPCA; Art. 24(1)(c) UPCA; Art. 67 EPCNote: The court held that compensation for use during the application publication period falls within UPC jurisdiction, applying Art. 67 EPC as national law on the basis of Art. 24(1)(c) UPCA since no unified rule exists. Claimants were required to plead the conditions for each individual member state.
Patent EP 3 356 109 is invalid (counterclaim for revocation)
RespondentLegal basis: Art. 65 UPCAReason: The revocation counterclaim was dismissed; the patent was upheld.
Third-party counterclaim (Dritt-Widerklage) against Alexander Christ should succeed
RespondentReason: The third-party counterclaim was dismissed.
Software-based deactivation of infringing function is an alternative to destruction
RespondentLegal basis: Art. 64 UPCAReason: The court ordered destruction rather than software-based deactivation, finding that deactivation could only be accepted if it were certain that the product could not be re-enabled into an infringing state.
Browse other cases on this principle.
For product-by-process claims, the court applied a construction focused on what technical properties the claimed manufacturing process confers on the resulting product. The skilled person's understanding of the manufacturing process description and the resulting structural/material properties of the foam resin structural part is the decisive interpretive question, not the specific process steps as such.