UPClytics
ENDE
Sign inStart trial
View all cases

UPC CFI 716/2024

Nov 22, 2024·EP2037175 · Premixed burner

Follow
Case details
Status
Case Closed (Patent infringed)
Action
Infringement
Category
Main infringement action
Parties
Claimants
Representatives
Respondents
Representatives
  • Marc van Wijngaarden
Division
Mannheim LD
Judges
Technology
  • Mechanical engineering
    Thermal processes and apparatus
Language
English
First decided
Dec 18, 2025
EPO Opposition
  • Worgas Bruciatori S.r.l.Admissible2017-08-02
  • Viessmann Werke GmbH & Co. KGAdmissible2017-08-22
  • BEKAERT COMBUSTION TECHNOLOGY B.V.Admissible2017-08-22
  • Viessmann Group GmbH & Co. KGAdmissible2017-08-22
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
Mannheim LDLockedLocked
Judge Peter TochtermannLockedLocked
Judge Dirk BöttcherLockedLocked
Judge Carine GilletLockedLocked
Judge Elisabetta PapaLockedLocked

At the UPC: Polidoro S.p.a. (8 cases)·NV Bekaert SA (4 cases)

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

This dispute contains 5 other proceedings

UPC CoA 29/2026·UPC CoA 30/2026·UPC CFI 193/2026·UPC CFI 194/2026·UPC CFI 205/2025

1 other defendants litigating the same or a related patent

UPC CFI 2841/2026

Start a free trial to see how each one ended.

More cases: Mannheim LD·2024

Decisions
  • 2025-12-18
    Infringement ActionPublic

    Summary: The Mannheim Local Division found that Bekaert Combustion Technology B.V. and NV Bekaert SA infringed Polidoro's premixed burner patent EP 2 037 175 and granted an injunction, recall/removal, destruction, information order, interim damages, and publication of the decision.

    Show the legal issues (3)
    • Patent infringement (premixed burner)
    • Claim construction
    • Recall and removal from distribution channels
  • 2025-05-08
    Public

    Summary: Procedural order granting Claimant Polidoro S.p.a. a one-week extension to 19 May 2025 for filing its Reply to the Statement of Defence and Defence to the Counterclaim for Revocation. Extension justified because access to the unredacted version of the Statement of Defence was delayed under Rule 262A RoP.

    Show the legal issues (2)
    • Extension of time period (Rule 9.3 RoP)
    • Delayed access to unredacted Statement of Defence (Rule 262A RoP)
Documents
Show all 217 documents
Document titleDatePublic
Order2026-07-02Not public
Order2026-07-02Public
Receipt2026-06-11Not public
Cover sheet2026-06-11Not public
Application document Defendant2026-06-11Not public
Receipt2026-06-11Not public
Cover sheet2026-06-11Not public
Document Claimant2026-06-11Not public
Order2026-05-07Not public
Order2026-05-07Public
Coverage: Partial.Reasoning extracted with partial coverage — some sections may be incomplete.
Plain-English summary

Polidoro S.p.a. sued Bekaert Combustion Technology B.V. and NV Bekaert SA for infringement of EP 2 037 175 B2 (a premixed burner patent, upheld in limited form after EPO opposition). The Mannheim Local Division found direct infringement of claim 1 and granted a full injunction, recall, information and interim-damages order across seven UPCA states, while dismissing the defendants' revocation counterclaim; defendants bear 75% of costs.

Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • Bekaert Combustion Technology B.V. directly infringes claim 1 of EP 2 037 175 B2 (premixed burner)

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 25 UPCA; direct infringement

    Note: Mannheim Local Division found all features of claim 1 realised in the Bekaert accused product, granting injunction across Austria, Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, Netherlands and Portugal.

  • NV Bekaert SA is jointly liable for infringement by its subsidiary Bekaert Combustion Technology B.V.

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 25 UPCA

    Note: Parent company found co-liable for acts of offering, placing on the market, importing and storing infringing products.

  • Patent survived opposition/appeal at EPO and should be given full weight as upheld in limited B2 form

    ClaimantLegal basis: Opposition proceedings before EPO Board of Appeal

    Note: The Board of Appeal upheld the patent in limited form, and the opposition decision was published on 27 November 2024; defendants' counterclaim for revocation was dismissed.

Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.

  • Counterclaim for revocation: patent lacks validity

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 65 UPCA

    Reason: Counterclaim for revocation was dismissed; no further detail visible in the excerpt.

  • Alleged disproportionate harm from injunction (late-filed claim about magnitude of damage)

    RespondentLegal basis: Proportionality; late-filing rule

    Reason: The statement made for the first time at oral hearing was belated and therefore disregarded; in any event, the orders related only to one of two attacked embodiments, reducing the alleged damage accordingly.

Key legal principles
Doctrines and rules cited in the reasoning.
Direct infringement of all features of granted/amended claim 1 suffices for injunctive reliefLate-filed arguments/evidence at oral hearing may be disregardedPatent upheld in opposition (B2 form) carries persuasive weight in infringement proceedingsInjunction conditions include notification and certified translation requirements before enforcement

Browse other cases on this principle.

Claim construction notes

Claim 1 (B2 form after opposition) was central: it covers a premixed burner with a tubular body, at least one disk with through-holes constituting the distribution head, a plate closing the opposite end, and the disk made integrally with a flange — specifically characterised by the absence of an inner distributor. The court found the Bekaert product met all these features.