UPC CFI 811/2024
Dec 20, 2024·EP1840282 +1 more · Vacuum sewer system
- Case details
- StatusCase Closed (Patent infringed)ActionInfringementCategoryMain infringement action
- Parties
- Claimants
- Evac OyOperating co.
Representatives- Cordula Julia Schumacher-Arnold Ruess
- Jan-Pieter Looksupporting-Patentanwälte Kutzenberger Wolff & Partner
Respondents- Shanghai VacDrain Vacuum Drainage Equipment Co., Ltd.Operating co.
- VD Solutions GmbHOperating co.
- Name withheld (GDPR)
- S.K. Marine Supplies GmbHOperating co.
Representatives- Matthias Ringer-Lorenz Seidler Gossel Rechtsanwälte Patentanwälte Partnerschaft mbB
- Christoph Bartels-RGTH Patentanwälte PartGmbB
- Xiaodi Wang-Lorenz Seidler Gossel Rechtsanwälte Patentanwälte Partnerschaft mbB
- Nikolaus von Tietzen-Lorenz Seidler Gossel Rechtsanwälte Patentanwälte Partnerschaft mbB
- Division
- Dusseldorf LD
- Technology
- Other fieldsCivil engineering
- Mechanical engineeringMechanical elements
- Language
- German
- First decided
- Jun 22, 2026
| Infringement found | Median days to first decision | |
|---|---|---|
| All UPC | 53% (62/117) | 124 |
| Dusseldorf LD | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Ronny Thomas | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Peter Agergaard | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Schumacher Jule | Locked | Locked |
At the UPC: Evac Oy (2 cases)·Shanghai VacDrain Vacuum Drainage Equipment Co., Ltd. (2 cases)
This dispute contains 1 other proceedings
Start a free trial to see how each one ended.
More cases: Dusseldorf LD·2024
- 2026-06-22Infringement ActionPublic
Summary: The Düsseldorf Local Division found that defendants 1 (Shanghai VacDrain) and 3 (Yong Cao) infringed EP 1 840 282 B1 and granted an injunction, recall from channels of distribution, and destruction of infringing products against them. The court further established their liability in principle for damages. Defendant 2 (VD Solutions GmbH) and claims relating to EP 1 813 734 B1 were dismissed (the action was otherwise rejected). Costs were allocated 70% to defendants 1 and 3 and 30% to the claimant.
Show the legal issues (6)
- limitation period (Article 72 UPCA) for financial compensation claims
- inapplicability of limitation period to injunctive relief
- agreement / consent as defence
- forfeiture (Verwirkung)
- de facto business succession
- exhaustion of rights
| Document title | Date | Public |
|---|---|---|
| Service Receipt/Service Document | 2026-08-14 | Not public |
| Communication | 2026-07-29 | Not public |
| Receipt | 2026-07-22 | Not public |
| Cover sheet | 2026-07-22 | Not public |
| Application document Claimant | 2026-07-22 | Not public |
| Receipt | 2026-07-08 | Not public |
| Cover sheet | 2026-07-08 | Not public |
| Application document Claimant | 2026-07-08 | Not public |
| Case closed | 2026-06-22 | Not public |
| Decision | 2026-06-22 | Not public |
Injunctive relief is not subject to the five-year limitation period under Article 72 UPCA because an injunction is directed towards the future
ClaimantLegal basis: Article 72 UPCADefendants 1 and 3 infringed EP 1 840 282 B1 through the manufacture and distribution of the accused products
ClaimantLegal basis: EP 1 840 282 B1
Financial compensation claims are barred by the five-year limitation period under Article 72 UPCA (to the extent claims were time-barred)
ClaimantLegal basis: Article 72 UPCAClaims against defendant 2 (VD Solutions GmbH) and claims relating to EP 1 813 734 B1 were dismissed
ClaimantLegal basis: EP 1 813 734 B1