- Case details
- StatusCase Closed (Patent infringed)ActionInfringementCategoryMain infringement action
- Parties
- Claimants
- Franz Kaldewei GmbH & Co. KGOperating co.
Representatives- Cordula Julia Schumacher-Arnold Ruess
- Benjamin Schnäbelin-Arnold Ruess
Respondents- Bette GmbH & Co. KGOperating co.
Representatives- Jens Michael Künzel-Krieger Mes & Graf von der Groeben
- Division
- Dusseldorf LD
- Technology
- Other fieldsConsumer products
- Language
- German
- First decided
- Dec 1, 2023
- Last decision
- Jul 3, 2024
| Infringement found | Median days to first decision | |
|---|---|---|
| All UPC | 53% (62/117) | 124 |
| Dusseldorf LD | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Berenice Thom | Locked | Locked |
| Judge András Kupecz | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Bernard Ledeboer | Locked | Locked |
At the UPC: Franz Kaldewei GmbH & Co. KG (4 cases)·Bette GmbH & Co. KG (4 cases)
This dispute contains 3 other proceedings
Start a free trial to see how each one ended.
More cases: Dusseldorf LD·2023
- 2024-07-03Infringement ActionPublic
Summary: Decision of the Düsseldorf Local Division finding infringement of EP 3 375 337 B1 by Bette GmbH & Co. KG in an action by Franz Kaldewei GmbH & Co. KG concerning bathroom basin technology. The defendant was ordered to cease and desist, recall and remove products from distribution channels, and pay EUR 10,000 as a provisional award of damages with a declaration of further damages liability. The revocation counterclaim was partially successful (50% costs for revocation). Key holdings address prior use rights under Art. 28 UPCA (must be proven country by country), the scope of the information right under Art. 68 UPCA, and the concept of permanent removal from distribution channels as distinct from recall.
Show the legal issues (5)
- Patent infringement Art. 25 UPCA
- Prior use rights Art. 28 UPCA (national basis required)
- Information right Art. 68 UPCA
- Recall and permanent removal from distribution channels
- Partial validity challenge (revocation counterclaim)
- 2023-12-01Infringement ActionPublic
Summary: The Düsseldorf Local Division decided under Rule 37.2 RoP to proceed with infringement and validity issues together (Article 33(3)(a) UPCA) in the patent dispute between Franz Kaldewei GmbH & Co. KG and Bette GmbH & Co. KG concerning EP 3 375 337 B1.
Show the legal issues (3)
- Bifurcation (Art. 33(3) UPCA)
- Joint hearing of infringement and validity
- Rule 37.2 RoP
| Document title | Date | Public |
|---|---|---|
| Case Closure Formal Check | 2025-09-12 | Not public |
| Case Closure Formal Check | 2025-03-27 | Not public |
| Outcome of the Order | 2024-09-06 | Not public |
| 2024-06-09 Order Workflow geschlossen | 2024-09-06 | Public |
| Receipt | 2024-08-23 | Not public |
| Anlage KM-A 1 | 2024-08-23 | Not public |
| Eingabe zum Nachweis der Maßnahme gemäß B. II. 3. der Entscheidung | 2024-08-23 | Not public |
| Anlage KM-A 2 | 2024-08-23 | Not public |
| Template-Order | 2024-07-17 | Not public |
| Receipt | 2024-07-17 | Not public |
Franz Kaldewei GmbH & Co. KG sued Bette GmbH & Co. KG before the Düsseldorf Local Division for infringement of EP 3 375 337 B1 (bathroom basin technology patent). The court found direct infringement, ordered injunction, recall and removal from distribution channels, and EUR 10,000 provisional damages. Key holdings established that the prior use right under Art. 28 UPCA must be pleaded and proven country-by-country under the national law of each member state, and that the right to book inspection is limited to damages proceedings and not available in infringement proceedings; the revocation counterclaim was partially successful (costs split 50/50).
Direct infringement of EP 3 375 337 B1 (bathroom basin technology) by Bette GmbH & Co. KG in the relevant UPC member states
ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 25(a) UPCANote: Düsseldorf Local Division found direct infringement; injunction, recall, removal from distribution channels, and EUR 10,000 provisional damages awarded.
Prior use right under Art. 28 UPCA must be established separately for each UPCA member state based on the national law of that state
ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 28 UPCANote: Court accepted that the prior use right is country-by-country and Bette failed to adequately plead it for each protected state.
The right to information under Art. 68 UPCA in combination with R. 191 RoP includes the right to request information about cost factors relied upon by defendant in calculating profits, as well as supporting documents (invoices or delivery notes)
ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 68(3)(a)(b) UPCA; R. 191 RoPPermanent removal from distribution channels is a distinct and separate measure from recall
ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 68 UPCA; R. 191 RoPNote: Court confirmed these are separate, flanking measures; removal is conditional on the infringer having the actual and legal means to effect it.
Prior use right defense under Art. 28 UPCA
RespondentLegal basis: Art. 28 UPCAReason: Defendant failed to adequately plead the prior use right country-by-country as required; the right under Art. 28 UPCA is governed by the national law of each protected member state and must be established separately for each.
Right to inspection of books (Offenlegung der Bücher) in the infringement proceedings
ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 68 UPCA; R. 131.1(c); R. 141 RoPReason: Court held that inspection of books under Art. 68 UPCA / R. 131.1(c) / R. 141 RoP is part of the damages quantification procedure and cannot be ordered in the main infringement proceedings; it is only applicable after a damages declaration.
Retrospective extension of time limit for procedural submissions
RespondentLegal basis: UPC Rules of ProcedureReason: Request for retrospective time extension must be made no later than at the same time as the submission for which it is sought; a subsequent retrospective request has no prospect of success.
Browse other cases on this principle.