UPC CoA 365/2025

At the UPC: Knaus Tabbert AG (8 cases)·Yellow Sphere Innovations GmbH (9 cases)

• 2026-08-17
  AppealPublic

  Summary: Court of Appeal rejected Knaus Tabbert's appeal in the infringement action. The Local Division Düsseldorf had largely granted the infringement claim over EP 3 356 109, and that finding stands.

  Show the legal issues (4)

  • novelty
  • inventive step
  • infringement
  • admissibility of new submissions on appeal (R. 263 RoP)
• 2025-06-17
  Public

  Summary: The Court of Appeal declared inadmissible Knaus Tabbert AG's 'Gegenvorstellung' (objection to the rejection of its stay application under R. 223 RoP), holding that a mere challenge to the reasoning of the appellate order denying a suspensive effect does not constitute an admissible procedural remedy, and that new facts about third parties' financial situation that could have been raised at first instance are not admissible.

  Show the legal issues (3)

  • Admissibility of 'Gegenvorstellung' against refusal of suspensive effect under R. 223 RoP
  • Admissibility of new facts in appellate proceedings
  • Suspensive effect of appeal
• 2025-05-21
  Application RoP 223Public

  Summary: Court of Appeal (Panel 2) rejected Knaus Tabbert AG's application for suspensive effect (R. 223 RoP) pending appeal against a first-instance infringement decision in Yellow Sphere Innovations GmbH / Härtwich v. Knaus Tabbert (Düsseldorf Local Division, EP 3 356 109, vehicle frame with foam resin). The court held: (1) no obviously wrong application of law regarding infringement; (2) enforcement security was within the first-instance court's discretion and Knaus Tabbert failed to raise financial vulnerability of claimant in first instance; (3) the proportionality finding on recall, removal from channels of commerce and destruction was not evidently wrong; (4) the appeal would not become devoid of purpose if enforcement proceeded.

  Show the legal issues (4)

  • Application for suspensive effect pending appeal (R. 223 RoP)
  • Enforcement security (Art. 82 UPCA)
  • Proportionality of recall, removal and destruction orders
  • New evidence on financial vulnerability of claimant not admissible in R. 223 proceedings if not raised in first instance