UPClytics
ENDE
Sign inStart trial
View all cases

UPC CFI 642/2025

Jul 11, 2025·EP3251983 · CONVEYOR BELT

Follow
Case details
Status
Written Phase (Settled)
Action
Infringement
Category
Main infringement action
Parties
Claimants
Representatives
Respondents
Representatives
Division
Munich LD
Judges
Technology
  • Mechanical engineering
    Handling
Language
German
First decided
Apr 2, 2026
Last decision
Sep 14, 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
Munich LDLockedLocked
Judge Matthias ZigannLockedLocked
Judge Ina SchnurrLockedLocked
Judge Mojca MlakarLockedLocked
Judge Lorenzo ParriniLockedLocked

At the UPC: Laitram L.L.C. (2 cases)·ScanBelt Modular Conveyor Systems A/S (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 472/2026

Start a free trial to see how each one ended.

More cases: Munich LD·2025

Decisions
  • 2026-09-14
    revocation counterclaim

    Summary: Munich Local Division decision (Panel 1b, 25 Aug 2026; published 14 Sep 2026) in Laitram L.L.C. v ScanBelt Modular Conveyor Systems A/S (EP 3 251 983; infringement action UPC_CFI_642/2025 and counterclaim for revocation UPC_CFI_472/2026): on both parties' request the court confirms under Art. 79 UPCA and R. 365, R. 11.2 RoP that the parties concluded the settlement agreement of 15 Jul 2026, including its costs clause; no further cost decision is required and the details of the settlement are confidential, with only redacted versions entered in the register.

    Show the legal issues (3)
    • Confirmation of a settlement by decision of the court (Art. 79 UPCA; R. 365, R. 11.2 RoP)
    • Confidentiality of settlement terms (R. 365.2, 262.2 RoP)
    • Costs per the settlement (R. 365.4 RoP)
  • 2026-04-02
    Infringement ActionPublic

    Summary: The court dismissed the defendant's second application to postpone the oral hearing scheduled for 8 December 2026. The court found that the defendant failed to present substantial grounds justifying a postponement, as the repeated assertion that the managing director was unavailable was unsubstantiated and no exceptional circumstances were demonstrated. Leave to appeal was not granted.

    Show the legal issues (5)
    • Application to postpone oral hearing
    • Substantial grounds required for postponement after date is set
    • Right to be heard vs. principles of expediency and procedural concentration
    • Defendant's failure to respond to scheduling invitation within deadline
    • Unavailability of managing director as grounds for postponement
Documents
Show all 247 documents
Document titleDatePublic
Other Documents2026-09-14Public
Decision2026-09-14Public
Communication2026-09-11Not public
Order2026-09-08Public
Note2026-09-07Not public
Receipt2026-09-02Not public
Cover sheet2026-09-02Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-09-02Not public
Submission Claimant2026-09-02Not public
Receipt2026-09-02Not public
Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • The respondent did not provide substantial grounds in its second postponement application; merely repeating that the managing director was unavailable without substantiation does not justify a postponement.

    ClaimantLegal basis: Rules 9.2, 9.3b(b), 343.2(a) UPC Rules of Procedure; Articles 42, 52(1) UPCA

  • After a hearing date is agreed with the parties, alternative dates are no longer reserved for the specific proceeding, so relying on a previously proposed alternative date in a late application is not a valid ground for postponement.

    ClaimantLegal basis: UPC Rules of Procedure (principle of expedition and concentration)
Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.

  • The managing director of the respondent is unavailable on 8 December 2026 due to a mandatory internal company event, and the hearing should therefore be postponed.

    RespondentLegal basis: Right to be heard (Articles 42, 52(1) UPCA; Rules 112-115 UPC Rules of Procedure)