UPClytics
View all cases

UPC CFI 779/2024

Dec 11, 2024·EP1748830 · APPARATUS FOR FILTERING LIQUIDS

Case details
Status
Case Closed (Patent infringed)
Action
Infringement
Category
Main infringement action
Division
Dusseldorf LD
Technology
  • Chemistry
    Chemical engineering · Environmental technology
Language
German
First decided
Apr 16, 2026
Last decision
May 27, 2026
EPO Opposition
  • Aquis Wasser-luft-systeme GmbH Lindau, Zweigniederlassung RebsteinAdmissible2008-04-25
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 Schumacher JuleLockedLocked
Judge Mojca MlakarLockedLocked

At the UPC: Brita SE (7 cases)·Wessper Sp. z o.o. (1 case)

Decisions
  • 2026-05-27
    Infringement ActionPublic

    Summary: The Local Division Düsseldorf rejected the defendant's post-judgment application for confidentiality protection orders under R. 262A and R. 262.2 RoP. The court held that the defendant failed to raise confidentiality concerns during the main proceedings despite having the opportunity to do so, and provided no adequate justification for seeking protection only after the judgment. The separate R. 262.2 request was also denied for lack of a procedural basis, as the relevant information had not yet been filed with the court.

    Show the legal issues (5)
    • Confidentiality protection under R. 262A RoP (analogous application)
    • Confidentiality protection under R. 262.2 RoP
    • Timeliness of post-judgment confidentiality applications
    • Duty to raise confidentiality concerns during main proceedings
    • Disclosure obligations under court-ordered accounting and information provisions
  • 2026-04-16
    Infringement ActionPublic

    Summary: The Local Division Düsseldorf found that Wessper Sp. z o.o. indirectly infringed EP 1 748 830 B1 by offering and supplying filter cartridges ('AquaMax') suitable for use in Brita's PerfectFit water jugs, thereby enabling use of the patented invention. The court rejected the defendant's exhaustion defence, holding that replacement of a wear-part cartridge constitutes a re-manufacture of the patented device under the asserted claim combination, and ordered disclosure of accounts and a declaration of liability for damages; the injunction claim was dismissed as moot because the patent had expired by lapse of time before judgment.

    Show the legal issues (8)
    • Indirect patent infringement (Art. 26 UPCA) — objective suitability of filter cartridge as means relating to an essential element of the invention
    • Exhaustion (Art. 29 UPCA) — whether replacement of a consumable filter cartridge constitutes permissible use or re-manufacture of the patented device
    • Claim combination analysis — whether the asserted sub-claim combination (claims 1, 13, 14, 15) enlarges the scope of the technical effect reflected in the wear part
    • Construction of 'Trichterbodenwand' (funnel base wall), 'Rand der Aufnahmeöffnung' (rim of receiving opening), fixing means, and throttle device
    • Jurisdiction over Liechtenstein under Brussels Ia Regulation and partial withdrawal
    • Temporal scope of UPCA applicability to pre-1 June 2023 acts
    • Penalty payment (Zwangsgeld) for non-compliance with disclosure order up to EUR 250,000
    • Case value / recoverable representation costs ceiling
Document titleDatePublic
Order2026-05-27Not public
Order2026-05-27Public
Receipt2026-05-26Not public
Cover sheet2026-05-26Not public
Document Defendant2026-05-26Not public
Communication2026-05-21Not public
Receipt2026-05-21Not public
Cover sheet2026-05-21Not public
Application document Claimant2026-05-21Not public
Order2026-05-18Not public
Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.
  • R. 262A RoP can apply by analogy to information that a party is ordered to disclose pursuant to a judgment, not only to information contained in pleadings

    RespondentLegal basis: R. 262A RoP; UPC_CoA_930/2025 (EOFLOW v. Insulet), Order of 29 January 2026, para. 26
Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.
  • Confidentiality protection orders should be granted for information to be disclosed by the defendant pursuant to the accounting and information order of 16 April 2026

    RespondentLegal basis: R. 262A RoP (analogous)
  • Confidentiality protection orders preventing third-party access to case file content referencing disclosed information should be granted under R. 262.2 RoP

    RespondentLegal basis: R. 262.2 RoP