UPClytics
ENDE
Sign inStart trial
View all cases

UPC CFI 727/2024

Dec 3, 2024·EP2363263 · Centring device for a forming tool

Follow
Case details
Status
Case Closed (No infringement)
Action
Infringement
Category
Main infringement action
Parties
Claimants
Representatives
Division
Milan LD
Judges
Technology
  • Mechanical engineering
    Other special machines · Mechanical elements
  • Chemistry
    Materials, metallurgy
Language
English
First decided
Jan 28, 2026
Last decision
May 5, 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
Milan LDLockedLocked
Judge Pierluigi PerrottiLockedLocked
Judge Anna-Lena KleinLockedLocked
Judge Alima ZanaLockedLocked
Judge Frédéric GaillardeLockedLocked

At the UPC: Agathon AG (2 cases)·Intercom s.r.l. (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 493/2025

Start a free trial to see how each one ended.

More cases: Milan LD·2024

Decisions
  • 2026-05-05
    Infringement ActionPublic

    Summary: The Milan Local Division dismissed the infringement action brought by Agathon AG against Intercom s.r.l. and Knarr Vertriebs GmbH, finding that the defendants' centring devices did not implement features 1.9 and 1.11 of EP 2 363 263 B1 (as amended) because the second rolling body row did not abut the encircling edge in the opened state. The patent was maintained in amended form (Auxiliary Request 1, combining original claims 1 and 3) after Intercom's counterclaim for revocation was partially upheld on novelty grounds as to the unamended claim 1; Agathon was ordered to bear 50% of each defendant's infringement-action costs, while each party bore its own costs for the validity proceedings.

    Show the legal issues (9)
    • Claim interpretation of features 1.8, 1.9, 1.11 — meaning of 'abuts' and 'opened state'
    • Role of prosecution history (EPO examination statements) in claim construction under Art. 69 EPC
    • Lack of novelty of original claim 1 in light of D3 (US 2,774,430)
    • Validity of dependent claims (claims 3 and others) for lack of novelty and inventive step
    • Patent amendment via Auxiliary Request 1 (combination of original claims 1 and 3)
    • Formstein/Gillette defence — non-infringement because defendants' products correspond to prior art
    • Doctrine of equivalents — whether spatial offset between second rolling body row and edge constitutes equivalent
    • Definition of 'attacked embodiment' and sufficiency of product samples to cover all variants
    • Cost apportionment where two defendants pursue identical defence strategy
  • 2026-01-28
    Infringement ActionPublic

    Summary: The Milan Local Division issued a post-interim-conference order in Agathon AG v. Intercom s.r.l. and KNARR Vertriebs GmbH, setting out rulings on admissibility of technical drawings filed by the claimant and the handling of conditional auxiliary requests per R. 30.1 RoP.

    Show the legal issues (3)
    • Post-interim-conference order (R. 105.5 RoP)
    • Admissibility of late-filed exhibits
    • Conditional auxiliary requests (R. 30.1 RoP)
Documents
Show all 232 documents
Document titleDatePublic
Other Documents2026-10-07Not public
Communication2026-09-01Not public
Other Documents2026-09-01Not public
Other Documents2026-07-21Not public
Case closed2026-05-05Not public
Decision2026-05-05Not public
Decision2026-05-05Not public
Other Documents2026-03-25Not public
Other Documents2026-03-25Not public
Other Documents2026-03-17Not public
Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • Feature 1.9 'abuts' requires actual contact between the second rolling body row and the encircling edge in the opened state; the broad interpretation that any position on the conical top satisfies the claim is incorrect

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 69 EPC; patent description paras [0022]-[0024]; EPO prosecution history statement by Agathon that abutment was 'essential/decisive'

  • The defendants' products do not implement feature 1.9 because the second rolling body row sits at a spatial distance from the encircling edge in the opened state, as confirmed by physical samples and claimant's own technical drawings (Annexes 27/28)

    RespondentLegal basis: Claim 1 (amended) features 1.9 and 1.11; direct inspection of product samples

  • Formstein/Gillette defence: the defendants' products correspond to prior art embodiments (particularly D1, D2) in which the sleeve runs onto rolling body rows sequentially rather than simultaneously, and therefore cannot infringe either literally or under equivalents

    RespondentLegal basis: Formstein/Gillette defence; prior art D1 (US 3,469,894) and D2 (US 3,614,178)

  • Original claim 1 of EP'263 lacks novelty in light of D3 (US 2,774,430) which discloses the key features, rendering the unamended patent partially invalid

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 54 EPC; D3 (US 2,774,430)

  • Auxiliary Request 1 (combining claims 1 and 3) satisfies Art. 84, 123(2) and 123(3) EPC and renders the patent valid in amended form

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 84, 123(2), 123(3) EPC; R. 30 RoP

  • A plurality of protruding guiding bodies (feature 1.4) is indeed present in defendants' products, consistent with defendants' own novelty arguments regarding D1/D2

    ClaimantLegal basis: Claim 1 feature 1.4; defendants' own submissions on D1/D2 novelty attack
Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.

  • Feature 1.9 'opened state' should be interpreted broadly to include any transitional phase toward the closed position, so that it makes no difference whether the second rolling body row abuts the edge or rests elsewhere on the conical top

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 69 EPC — rejected because patent description, figures, and claimant's own EPO prosecution statements require actual contact with the edge

  • The alleged infringing products infringe literally or under the doctrine of equivalents because the functional simultaneous loading effect is achieved regardless of the exact position of the second rolling body row

    ClaimantLegal basis: Doctrine of equivalents — rejected because the products correspond to prior art and the Formstein/Gillette defence applies

  • Counterclaim for revocation of the patent based on lack of novelty or inventive step as to D1, D2, D4, D5-D8, D9

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 54 and 56 EPC — rejected; only D3 partially succeeded as to original claim 1