UPC CFI 74/2024
Feb 22, 2024·EP3866051 Unitary patent · MOBILE COMPUTER CONFIGURED TO READ MULTIPLE DECODABLE INDICIA
Action number: ACT 9216/2024
- Case details
- StatusCase ClosedActionProvisional measuresCategoryProvisional measures
- Parties
- Respondents
- Scandit AGOperating co.
Representatives- Johannes Bukow-Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP
- Jan Zecher-Fish & Richardson P.C.
- Division
- Munich LD
- Technology
- Electrical engineeringComputer technology
- Language
- German
- First decided
- Aug 27, 2024
- EPO Opposition
- Scandit AGWithdrawn2024-11-21
- Scandit, Inc.Withdrawn2024-11-21
| Preliminary injunction granted | Median days to first decision | |
|---|---|---|
| All UPC | 54% (38/70) | 124 |
| Munich LD | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Matthias Zigann | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Tobias Pichlmaier | Locked | Locked |
| Judge András Kupecz | Locked | Locked |
At the UPC: Hand Held Products, Inc. (15 cases)·Scandit AG (15 cases)
This dispute contains 5 other proceedings
UPC CoA 520/2024·UPC CFI 408/2024·UPC CFI 73/2024·UPC APP 12933/2025·UPC APP 7141/2025
- 2024-08-27Application for provisional measuresPublic
Summary: Munich Local Division granted a preliminary injunction (provisional measures) against Hand Held Products for indirect/contributory infringement of Scandit AG's barcode-scanning patent EP 3 866 051. The court found indirect infringement (mittelbare Patentverletzung) of claims 1 and 10 proved to the necessary standard and ordered Hand Held Products to cease and desist from offering/supplying the infringing SDK software in multiple UPC member states, subject to a periodic penalty of up to EUR 100,000 per day of non-compliance. The application for direct infringement was rejected. The injunction was conditioned on Scandit providing security of EUR 500,000. Cost applications by both parties were dismissed.
Show the legal issues (6)
- Indirect/contributory patent infringement (mittelbare Patentverletzung)
- Distinction between direct and indirect infringement of apparatus claims
- Conditions for preliminary injunction in provisional measures proceedings
- Relative vs. absolute injunction for indirect infringement
- Proportionality and standard for validity assessment in PI proceedings
- Security as condition for enforceability
| Document title | Date | Public |
|---|---|---|
| Outcome of the Order | 2025-04-23 | Not public |
| R 9 Freigabe Sicherheit | 2025-04-23 | Public |
| Receipt | 2025-04-23 | Not public |
| Application release security | 2025-04-22 | Not public |
| Acknowledgement-of-lodging | 2024-10-09 | Not public |
| Antrag | 2024-10-09 | Not public |
| Outcome of the Order | 2024-09-27 | Not public |
| Confirmation of appointment | 2024-09-27 | Public |
| Receipt | 2024-09-24 | Not public |
| Acknowledgement-of-change-of-a-representative | 2024-09-24 | Not public |
Scandit AG applied for provisional measures against Hand Held Products, Inc. concerning EP 3 866 051, a barcode-scanning mobile computer patent, before the Munich Local Division. The court granted a preliminary injunction for indirect infringement of claims 1 and 10 through Hand Held Products' SDK software, but rejected the application for direct infringement because completion of the patented device by customers was not sufficiently certain. The injunction was conditioned on Scandit providing security of EUR 500,000.
Indirect (contributory) infringement of barcode-scanning patent claims 1 and 10 established through SDK software supply
ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 26 UPCA (indirect infringement / mittelbare Patentverletzung)Note: The Munich Local Division found indirect infringement proved to the necessary standard: Hand Held Products' SDK software, together with videos and documentation, enables downstream customers to create a device realising all claim features, satisfying the requirements for indirect infringement (Gefährdungstatbestand).
Relative prohibition (Relativverbot) rather than absolute prohibition appropriate for indirect infringement injunction where legitimate non-infringing uses of the SDK exist
RespondentNote: The court considered whether the infringing use could be sufficiently addressed through a relative rather than absolute prohibition, weighing remaining possibilities for non-infringing uses of the SDK.
Direct infringement of device claim established because defendant appropriates downstream customer acts (verlängerte Werkbank / extended workbench theory)
ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 25 UPCAReason: The court held that direct infringement requires that completion of the patented device by the customer is certain and specifically defined; given the multiple alternative programming and hardware configuration possibilities with the SDK, this certainty was lacking. Direct infringement was therefore not established.
Patent EP 3 866 051 is invalid (validity challenge in PI proceedings)
RespondentReason: In PI proceedings a full examination of all invalidity arguments is not possible; the number of arguments is limited to the best three from respondent's perspective. The court found that the validity challenges raised did not overcome the presumption of validity.
Browse other cases on this principle.
The injunction order reproduces the claim language for claims 1 and 10 of EP 3 866 051 in German, describing a mobile computer/barcode reading device configured to capture, decode, and display images of decodable indicia with product images from a lookup table database. The key construction issue was whether Hand Held Products' SDK, by enabling downstream customers to assemble such a device, constituted indirect infringement — held yes; but whether it constituted direct infringement through the extended workbench theory — held no, due to multiple alternative implementation possibilities.