UPClytics
View all cases

UPC CFI 559/2024

Oct 1, 2024·EP3156843 · DEVICE AND METHOD FOR THREE-DIMENSIONAL RECONSTRUCTION OF THE HEAD AND BODY

Case details
Status
Case Closed (Patent infringed)
Action
Infringement
Category
Main infringement action
Parties
Respondents
Representatives
Division
Dusseldorf LD
Technology
  • Instruments
    Optics
Language
German
First decided
Apr 23, 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
Dusseldorf LDLockedLocked
Judge Ronny ThomasLockedLocked
Judge Jule SchumacherLockedLocked
Judge Peter AgergaardLockedLocked
Judge Stefan WilhelmLockedLocked

At the UPC: QUANTIFICARE S.A. (5 cases)·Canfield Scientific GmbH (4 cases)

This dispute contains 3 other proceedings

UPC CoA 110/2026·UPC CoA 99/2026·UPC CFI 106/2025

1 other defendants litigating the same or a related patent

UPC CFI 3035/2026

Start a free trial to see how each one ended.

More cases: Dusseldorf LD·2024

Decisions
  • 2026-04-23
    Counterclaim for revocationPublic

    Summary: The UPC Local Division Düsseldorf found that EP 3 156 843 (a stereophotogrammetry device and method for 3D body reconstruction) was directly infringed by the respondents' Canfield Vectra H2 imaging system in Belgium, France, Italy, and the Netherlands. The court granted an injunction, recall, removal from distribution channels, disclosure of information, provisional damages of EUR 20,000, and a declaration of liability for further damages, while dismissing the defendants' counterclaim for revocation in its entirety.

    Show the legal issues (11)
    • Infringement of claims 1 and 14 of EP 3 156 843 by Canfield Vectra H2 stereophotogrammetry system
    • Territorial scope of UPC injunction under Art. 34 UPCA including 'carve out' of Germany due to parallel German proceedings
    • Claim construction: whether dual optics require two separate optical systems without moving parts
    • Claim construction: whether the signalling of target distance requires two temporally separate steps
    • Validity of EP 3 156 843: lack of inventive step counterclaim by respondents
    • Standing/passive legitimation of Defendant 1 (German subsidiary) for acts in other contracting member states
    • Limitation/prescription under Art. 72 UPCA for damages and ancillary claims
    • Provisional damages under R. 119 RoP
    • Provisional reimbursement of costs under R. 150.2 RoP
    • Security for enforcement under Art. 82(2) UPCA
    • Confidentiality order as condition precedent to disclosure obligation
  • 2025-07-02

    Summary: The Düsseldorf Local Division issued a procedural order pursuant to Art. 33(3)(a) UPCA, deciding to retain both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation together, and requesting assignment of a technically qualified judge.

    Show the legal issues (2)
    • Art. 33(3)(a) UPCA bifurcation vs. combination
    • Assignment of technically qualified judge
Document titleDatePublic
Note2026-05-26Not public
Order2026-05-25Not public
Order2026-05-25Public
Receipt2026-05-22Not public
Cover sheet2026-05-22Not public
Application Respondent2026-05-22Not public
Application Respondent2026-05-22Not public
Application Respondent2026-05-22Not public
Application Respondent2026-05-22Not public
Exhibit Respondent2026-05-22Not public