UPClytics
View all cases

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
Status
Case Closed
Action
Provisional measures
Category
Provisional measures
Parties
Claimants
Representatives
Respondents
Representatives
Division
Munich LD
Technology
  • Electrical engineering
    Computer technology
Language
German
First decided
Aug 27, 2024
EPO Opposition
  • Scandit AGWithdrawn2024-11-21
  • Scandit, Inc.Withdrawn2024-11-21
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.
Preliminary injunction grantedMedian days to first decision
All UPC54% (38/70)124
Munich LDLockedLocked
Judge Matthias ZigannLockedLocked
Judge Tobias PichlmaierLockedLocked
Judge András KupeczLockedLocked

At the UPC: Hand Held Products, Inc. (15 cases)·Scandit AG (15 cases)

Decisions
  • 2024-08-27
    Application 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
Documents
Document titleDatePublic
Outcome of the Order2025-04-23Not public
R 9 Freigabe Sicherheit2025-04-23Public
Receipt2025-04-23Not public
Application release security2025-04-22Not public
Acknowledgement-of-lodging2024-10-09Not public
Antrag2024-10-09Not public
Outcome of the Order2024-09-27Not public
Confirmation of appointment2024-09-27Public
Receipt2024-09-24Not public
Acknowledgement-of-change-of-a-representative2024-09-24Not public
Request for access to audio recording of oral hearing2024-09-23Not public
Application-RoP293-Receipt2024-09-23Not public
Formal-checks_Notification-of-positive-outcome2024-09-23Not public
Application-RoP2932024-09-19Not public
Vertreterwechsel2024-09-19Not public
Receipt2024-09-05Not public
20240904_Schriftsatz_Hand_Held-H169782EVU3_NEU_signed2024-09-04Not public
Anlage_BP112024-09-04Not public
Headnote-and-Keyword-Translated2024-09-04Not public
Headnote-and-Keywords2024-08-27Not public
Measures_DecisionOutcome_Notification.pdf2024-08-27Not public
final order signed2024-08-27Public
9216-2024_OH_MUN-LOC_UPC202406199am2024-08-09Not public
9216-2024_OH_MUN-LOC_UPC202406199am2024-08-09Not public
Receipt2024-07-24Not public
Eingangsbestätigung2024-07-23Not public
Rückgabe Eingangsbestätigung2024-07-23Not public
summons2024-06-05Not public
Ladung (2)2024-06-05Public
Receipt2024-06-04Not public
Regel 92024-06-03Not public
Receipt2024-05-28Not public
Weitere Stellungnahme der Antragsgegnerin2024-05-28Not public
Anlage FR 232024-05-28Not public
Anlage FR 242024-05-28Not public
Anlage FR 222024-05-28Not public
Ladung2024-05-16Public
Erwiderung auf Einspruch2024-05-13Not public
Stellungnahme zum Einspruch2024-04-24Not public
Anlage FR 162024-04-24Not public
Einspruch2024-04-24Not public
Anlage FR 172024-04-24Not public
Anlage FR 62024-04-24Not public
Anlage FR 212024-04-24Not public
Anlage FR 92024-04-24Not public
Anlage FR 102024-04-24Not public
Anlage FR 12024-04-24Not public
Anlage FR 42024-04-24Not public
Anlage FR 72024-04-24Not public
Anlage FR 132024-04-24Not public
Anlage FR 122024-04-24Not public
Anlage FR 22024-04-24Not public
Anlage FR 182024-04-24Not public
Anlage FR 192024-04-24Not public
Anlage FR 202024-04-24Not public
Anlage FR 142024-04-24Not public
Anlage FR 152024-04-24Not public
Anlage FR 52024-04-24Not public
Anlage FR 32024-04-24Not public
Anlage FR 112024-04-24Not public
Anlage FR 82024-04-24Not public
R 209 - Einspruchsfrist2024-04-22Not public
Proof of service2024-04-16Not public
Confirmation of notification of appointment2024-04-16Not public
Acknowledgement of access to case2024-04-15Not public
Outcome of the Order2024-03-05Not public
R 9 final2024-03-05Public
Receipt2024-02-29Not public
Rule 9 Application2024-02-29Not public
Empfangsbestaetigung2024-02-29Not public
Letter for Service2024-02-28Not public
Panel-Appointment2024-02-28Not public
Application-For-Measures-Receipt2024-02-23Not public
Formal-checks_Notification-of-positive-outcome2024-02-23Not public
Application-For-Measures-Acknowledgement2024-02-21Not public
Anlage BP-1_Website Honeywell DE.pdf2024-02-21Not public
Anlage BP-8_OLG DUS_Lungenfunktionsmessgeraet.pdf2024-02-21Not public
Anlage BP-3b_Dokumentation EN.pdf2024-02-21Not public
Anlage BP-7b_Antrag_einheitliche_Wirkung.pdf2024-02-21Not public
Anlage BP-3d_Begleitschreiben zur Anlage EP051.pdf2024-02-21Not public
Anlage BP-6_Kontaktformular.pdf2024-02-21Not public
Anlage BP-3c_Barcode Symbologies EN.pdf2024-02-21Not public
Anlage BP-4_Privacy Policy - Scandit.pdf2024-02-21Not public
Anlage BP-7d_Entscheidung Erteilung.pdf2024-02-21Not public
Anlage BP-3g - Screenshots Matrix Scan EN.pdf2024-02-21Not public
Anlage BP-9_OLG DUS_Primaere Verschluesselungslogik.pdf2024-02-21Not public
Anlagenverzeichnis_EP051.pdf2024-02-21Not public
H169782EVU3 - Gerichtskosten UPC.pdf2024-02-21Not public
Anlage BP-3f Begleitschreiben zur Anlage EP051.pdf2024-02-21Not public
Anlage BP-7a_Klagepatent B1-Schrift.pdf2024-02-21Not public
H169782EVU3 PI Request - Handheld products dd February 21 2024 Signed.pdf2024-02-21Not public
Anlage BP-2_Scandit Website DE.pdf2024-02-21Not public
Anlage BP-3e - Demonstrationsvideo Screenshots EN.pdf2024-02-21Not public
Anlage BP-7e_Merkmalsgliederung_EP051.pdf2024-02-21Not public
Anlage BP-7c_EBS_Antrag_einheitliche_Wirkung.pdf2024-02-21Not public
Anlage BP-10_schriftliche Zeugenaussage.pdf2024-02-21Not public
Anlage BP-3a_Scnadit Barcode Scanner SDK DE.pdf2024-02-21Not public
Anlage BP-5_Sprachauswahl_Website.pdf2024-02-21Not public
Plain-English summary

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.

Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.
  • 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

    Respondent

    Note: 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.

Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.
  • Direct infringement of device claim established because defendant appropriates downstream customer acts (verlängerte Werkbank / extended workbench theory)

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 25 UPCA

    Reason: 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)

    Respondent

    Reason: 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.

Claim construction notes

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.