UPC Analytics
ENDE
Overview · Filed: Nov 22, 2024

UPC_CFI_716/2024

Premixed burner

InfringementMain Infringement ActionMannheim LDInfringementCase Closed
OverviewDecisionsReasoningCitationsDocumentsTimeline
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.