UPClytics
ENDE
Sign inStart trial
View all cases

UPC CFI 733/2024

Dec 2, 2024·EP2624031 · Method and Arrangement for generating a laser beam having a differing beam profile characteristic by means of a multi-clad fibre

Follow
Case details
Status
Case Closed (Patent infringed)
Action
Infringement
Category
Main infringement action
Parties
Claimants
Representatives
Respondents
Representatives
Division
Dusseldorf LD
Judges
Technology
  • Instruments
    Optics
  • Mechanical engineering
    Machine tools
Language
German
First decided
Mar 16, 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
Dusseldorf LDLockedLocked
Judge Ronny ThomasLockedLocked
Judge Jule SchumacherLockedLocked
Judge Peter AgergaardLockedLocked
Judge Anders HanssonLockedLocked

At the UPC: TRUMPF Laser- und Systemtechnik SE (4 cases)·IPG Laser GmbH & Co. KG (9 cases)

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

This dispute contains 3 other proceedings

UPC CFI 255/2025·UPC APP 35497/2025·UPC APP 35917/2025

Start a free trial to see how each one ended.

More cases: Dusseldorf LD·2024

Decisions
  • 2026-03-16
    Infringement ActionPublic

    Summary: The Düsseldorf Local Division (Panel 1) held that IPG Laser's YLS-AMB dual-beam fibre laser directly infringes apparatus claim 2 and indirectly infringes method claim 1 of EP2624031, granting an injunction (in Germany, France and Italy), recall/removal-from-distribution/destruction, information/accounting, and EUR 115,000 in provisional damages plus EUR 115,000 in provisional cost reimbursement, while dismissing the remainder of the infringement claim (the ancillary remedies sought for components attacked only under the indirect-infringement theory). IPG's counterclaim for revocation of claims 1-3 (UPC_CFI_255/2025) was examined on novelty and inventive step over prior art D1/D3 and dismissed as unfounded, so the patent is maintained as granted; costs of the infringement action were split 10%/90% (claimant/defendant) and the defendant bears all costs of the counterclaim.

    Show the legal issues (7)
    • Claim construction of the switchable multi-clad/dual-beam fibre-laser claims (Anspruch 1 method / Anspruch 2 apparatus), EP2624031
    • Novelty and inventive step of EP2624031 claims 1-3 over D1/D3 (revocation counterclaim), Art. 54/56 EPC
    • Direct infringement (Art. 25(a) UPCA) of apparatus claim 2 by the IPG YLS-AMB dual-beam laser
    • Indirect infringement (Art. 26(1) UPCA) of method claim 1 through offer/supply of a suited-and-intended device
    • Scope of recall / removal-from-distribution-channels / destruction remedies where a component is attacked only under an indirect-infringement theory, Art. 64(2)(b),(d),(e) and 64(4) UPCA
    • Provisional damages and provisional cost reimbursement under R.119 and R.150.2 RoP
    • Recoverable-representation-cost ceiling computed on the combined value of the infringement action and the counterclaim
  • 2025-07-25
    Public

    Summary: Düsseldorf Local Division early procedural order (R. 37.2 RoP) in an infringement action by TRUMPF Laser- und Systemtechnik SE against IPG Laser GmbH & Co. KG concerning EP 2 624 031 B1 (a laser technology patent). The court decided to handle both the infringement action and the revocation counterclaim jointly (Art. 33(3)(a) UPCA), before closure of the written procedure, for reasons of procedural economy and to allow early assignment of a technically qualified judge.

    Show the legal issues (2)
    • Joint handling of infringement and revocation counterclaim (Art. 33(3)(a) UPCA / R. 37.2 RoP)
    • Early procedural order before close of written procedure
Documents
Show all 132 documents
Document titleDatePublic
Receipt2026-04-16Not public
Cover sheet2026-04-16Not public
Application document Applicant2026-04-16Not public
Order2026-03-16Public
Case closed2026-03-16Not public
Decision2026-03-16Not public
Decision2026-03-16Not public
Decision2026-03-16Not public
Other Documents2026-03-02Not public
Receipt2026-01-21Not public
Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • The accused YLS-AMB dual-beam fibre laser realizes all features of claim 2 literally (a switchable device with at least two switching positions coupling a first/second laser beam into the inner core / an outer ring core of a multi-clad fibre), so it directly infringes claim 2 under Art. 25(a) UPCA.

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 25(a) UPCA — literal infringement of claim 2, EP2624031

  • The accused device is objectively suited and intended for carrying out the claim 1 method and is offered/supplied to customers for that use with the defendant's knowledge, so its offer and supply indirectly infringes claim 1 under Art. 26(1) UPCA.

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 26(1) UPCA — indirect infringement of claim 1, EP2624031

  • Claims 1 to 3 are novel and involve an inventive step over D1 and D3, which are both directed to irradiation of biological material, do not disclose a differing beam-profile characteristic, and are not realistic starting points for an obviousness attack.

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 54/56 EPC — defending validity against the revocation counterclaim
Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.

  • EP2624031 claims 1 to 3 lack novelty and/or an inventive step over D1 and D3.

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 54/56 EPC — revocation counterclaim, held unfounded ('unbegründet'); patent maintained as granted

  • Recall, removal from distribution channels and destruction should also extend to individual components attacked only on the indirect-infringement theory.

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 64(2) UPCA — rejected because components giving rise only to an indirect-infringement charge are not 'the subject matter of the patent'; this is the part of the infringement claim dismissed 'im Übrigen' in operative item VI