UPClytics
ENDE
Sign inStart trial
View all cases

UPC CFI 595/2024

Oct 14, 2024·EP3686683 Unitary patent · DEVELOPER REPLENISHING CONTAINER AND DEVELOPER REPLENISHING SYSTEM

Follow
Case details
Status
Case Closed (Patent upheld as granted)
Action
Counterclaim for revocation
Category
Counterclaim for revocation
Parties
Claimants
Representatives
Respondents
Representatives
Division
Dusseldorf LD
Judges
Technology
  • Instruments
    Optics
Language
English
First decided
Nov 20, 2025
Last decision
Apr 30, 2026
EPO Opposition
  • Katun Germany GmbHAdmissible2024-12-13
  • Katun (E.D.C.) B.V.Admissible2024-12-13
  • Katun CorporationAdmissible2024-12-13
  • General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd.Admissible2024-12-13
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.
Patent revokedMedian days to first decision
All UPC37% (34/91)124
Dusseldorf LDLockedLocked
Judge Ronny ThomasLockedLocked
Judge Jule SchumacherLockedLocked
Judge Marije KnijffLockedLocked
Judge Stefanie PhilippsLockedLocked

At the UPC: Katun (E.D.C.) B.V. (2 cases)·Canon Kabushiki Kaisha (2 cases)

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

This dispute contains 1 other proceedings

UPC CFI 351/2024

Start a free trial to see how each one ended.

More cases: Dusseldorf LD·2024

Decisions
  • 2026-04-30
    Counterclaim for revocationPublic

    Summary: The Düsseldorf Local Division dismissed the Defendants' application for a confidentiality order under R. 262A RoP, filed on 18 February 2026. The Court held the application inadmissible because the Defendants could reasonably have foreseen the need for confidentiality protection during the main proceedings and should have raised it there. Additionally, the Court held that restricting how information may be used (not just who may access it) is a matter of substantive law that cannot be addressed in enforcement proceedings.

    Show the legal issues (5)
    • Admissibility of R. 262A RoP confidentiality application filed after main proceedings
    • Applicability of R. 262A RoP to information disclosed pursuant to a court order (Art. 67 UPCA / R. 191 RoP)
    • Timing requirement: confidentiality requests must be raised during proceedings on the merits if reasonably foreseeable
    • Restriction on use of disclosed information as a matter of substantive law not addressable in enforcement proceedings
    • Scope of confidentiality protection for information disclosed under information order
  • 2026-02-11
    Infringement ActionPublic

    Summary: The Düsseldorf Local Division found Canon's developer supply container patent EP 3 686 683 infringed by Katun and General Plastic entities, granting an injunction and ordering defendants to publish the operative part of the decision on their websites; the counterclaim for revocation was dismissed.

    Show the legal issues (3)
    • Patent infringement (developer supply container)
    • Counterclaim for revocation dismissed
    • Publication of decision on defendant's website (Art. 80 UPCA)
  • 2025-12-29
    Infringement ActionPublic

    Summary: The Düsseldorf Local Division addressed Canon's request for simultaneous interpretation from English into Japanese during the oral hearing, for corporate representatives joining remotely from Japan.

    Show the legal issues (2)
    • Request for simultaneous interpretation (R. 109 RoP)
    • Remote participation by Japanese corporate representatives
  • 2025-12-10
    Public

    Summary: The Düsseldorf Local Division issued a post-interim-conference order in the Canon v. Katun proceedings, setting the feature breakdown of claim 1 of EP 3 686 683 to be used at the oral hearing.

    Show the legal issues (2)
    • Post-interim-conference order (R. 105.5 RoP)
    • Feature breakdown of patent claim
  • 2025-11-20
    Public

    Summary: The Düsseldorf Local Division granted Canon's application for a further round of written pleadings under R. 36 RoP against Katun, to address the EPO Opposition Division's preliminary opinion and additional test purchases of allegedly infringing toner cartridge products.

    Show the legal issues (3)
    • R. 36 RoP further pleadings based on new evidence
    • EPO preliminary opinion
    • Additional test purchases - new model numbers
Documents
Show all 148 documents
Document titleDatePublic
Receipt2026-03-11Not public
Cover sheet2026-03-11Not public
Exhibit Respondent2026-03-11Not public
Exhibit Respondent2026-03-11Not public
Exhibit Respondent2026-03-11Not public
Exhibit Respondent2026-03-11Not public
Exhibit Respondent2026-03-11Not public
Exhibit Respondent2026-03-11Not public
Application Respondent2026-03-11Not public
Application Respondent2026-03-11Not public
Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • R. 262A RoP applies at least mutatis mutandis to information that must be disclosed pursuant to a court order under Art. 67 UPCA and R. 191 RoP

    RespondentLegal basis: R. 262A.1 RoP; R. 190.1 RoP; R. 191 RoP; Art. 67 UPCA; UPC_CoA_930/2025 (EOFlow v. Insulet)
Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.

  • The application for a confidentiality order under R. 262A RoP should be granted because the information to be disclosed is commercially sensitive and the Claimant competes indirectly with Defendants

    RespondentLegal basis: R. 262A RoP; Art. 58 UPCA; Art. 2(1) Directive (EU) 2016/943

  • R. 262A RoP does not apply at all to information disclosed pursuant to a court order, as its wording is confined to pleadings and evidence collection

    ClaimantLegal basis: R. 262A.1 RoP

  • The application should be dismissed as inadmissible because it was filed late and after the main proceedings were closed

    ClaimantLegal basis: R. 262A RoP; R. 191 RoP; R. 190.1 RoP