UPC CoA 19/2025
Jan 10, 2025·EP2867997 SEP · WIRELESS INDUCTIVE POWER TRANSFER
- Case details
- StatusCase Closed (Patent infringed)ActionAppealCategoryMain appeal
- Parties
- Respondents
- Koninklijke Philips N.V.Operating co.
Representatives- Tilman Mueller-Bardehle Pagenberg
- Not named-Eisenführ Speiser
- Division
- Court of Appeal
- Technology
- Electrical engineeringTelecommunications
- Language
- German
- First decided
- Oct 3, 2025
| Median days to first decision | |
|---|---|
| All UPC | 124 |
| Judge Rian Kalden | Locked |
| Judge Patricia Rombach | Locked |
| Judge Ingeborg Simonsson | Locked |
| Judge Alain Dumont | Locked |
| Judge Uwe Schwengelbeck | Locked |
At the UPC: Belkin Group (24 cases)·Philips Group (46 cases)
This dispute contains 11 other proceedings
UPC CoA 54/2026·UPC CFI 586/2025·UPC CFI 171/2025·UPC CFI 30/2025·UPC CFI 32/2025 and 6 more
7 other defendants litigating the same or a related patent
UPC CFI 2719/2026·UPC CFI 915/2025·UPC CFI 615/2025·UPC CFI 1871/2025·UPC CFI 524/2025 and 2 more
Start a free trial to see how each one ended.
More cases: Court of Appeal·2025
- 2025-10-03Appeal RoP220.1Public
Summary: Court of Appeal decision on patent infringement and counterclaim for invalidity. Belkin GmbH, Belkin International Inc. and Belkin Limited were found to infringe Philips' patent EP 2 867 997. The appeal court partially modified the first-instance judgment: it ordered Belkin (GmbH, International, Limited) to recall, permanently remove and destroy the infringing products; excluded acts by Belkin GmbH and Belkin Limited in Germany from the injunction; and set penalty payments of up to EUR 100,000 per day for breach of the cease-and-desist order. Philips' cross-appeal seeking electronic disclosure was rejected. Costs were split 50/50 between Belkin (three entities) and Philips for the infringement action; Belkin bore the invalidity counterclaim costs. The patent was maintained (revocation counterclaim dismissed).
Show the legal issues (6)
- Definition of 'offering' under Art. 25(a) UPCA (economic, not strictly legal contract-law concept)
- Secondary liability of company directors for patent infringement
- Knowledge requirement (awareness of illegality) for accessory liability of managing directors
- Scope of remedial measures (recall, removal, destruction) under Art. 64(2) UPCA
- Penalty payments under R. 354.3 RoP
- Counterclaim for revocation – patent maintained
- 2025-10-03Appeal RoP220.1Public
Summary: Identical rectification order under R.353 VerfO correcting headnote 7 of the 3 October 2025 decision, corresponding to the Belkin counterclaim for revocation appeal (UPC_CoA_19/2025). Same substance as rectification in UPC_CoA_534/2024 and UPC_CoA_683/2024.
Show the legal issues (2)
- Rectification of obvious error in Court decision under R.353 RoP
- Recall and removal orders — deadline requirement