UPClytics
ENDE
Sign inStart trial
View all cases

UPC CoA 623/2025

Jul 3, 2025·EP2778423 · Centrifugal pump assembly

Follow
Case details
Status
Case Closed (Patent partly revoked)
Action
Appeal
Category
Main appeal
Parties
Respondents
Representatives
Division
Court of Appeal
Judges
Technology
  • Mechanical engineering
    Engines, pumps, turbines
Language
German
First decided
May 27, 2026
How this compares
How long the court takes to reach a first decision.
Median days to first decision
All UPC124
Judge Rian KaldenLocked
Judge Patricia RombachLocked
Judge Ingeborg SimonssonLocked
Judge Steven KitchenLocked
Judge Uwe AusfelderLocked

At the UPC: Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd. (6 cases)·Grundfos Holding A/S (7 cases)

Start 14-day free trialAlready a user? Sign in
Related cases
All proceedings on this patent

This dispute contains 5 other proceedings

UPC CoA 622/2025·UPC CFI 426/2025·CC 26515/2024·UPC CFI 11/2024·UPC APP 8530/2025

1 other defendants litigating the same or a related patent

UPC CFI 835/2025

Start a free trial to see how each one ended.

More cases: Court of Appeal·2025

Decisions
  • 2026-05-27
    Appeal RoP220.2Public

    Summary: The Court of Appeal (UPC) reversed the Düsseldorf Local Division's first-instance decision, partially revoking EP 2 778 423 (claims 1–3, 5, and 11, to the extent not dependent on surviving claims) for lack of inventive step over prior art D5 combined with general technical knowledge, while maintaining claims 4, 6, 7, 9, and 10. As a consequence, the infringement action by Grundfos against Hefei was dismissed in full because the infringement allegations were based solely on the revoked claims and non-patentable auxiliary requests.

    Show the legal issues (9)
    • New submissions on appeal (R. 222.2 RoP) — admissibility threshold
    • Claim construction — distinction between 'Umschalten' (switching) and 'Zuschalten' (adding) external speed control
    • Claim construction — primacy of language of proceedings (German) over English translation (Art. 70(1) EPC)
    • Claim construction — consistent interpretation of identical terms across claim features
    • Lack of inventive step of claim 1 over DE 101 39 510 A1 (D5) combined with general technical knowledge
    • Admissibility of new prior-art combinations raised in nullity counterclaim on appeal
    • Validity of dependent claims 2–3, 5–11 and auxiliary requests
    • Dismissal of infringement action following partial revocation of patent
    • Refusal to stay proceedings pending separate nullity action
Documents
Document titleDatePublic
Case closed2026-05-27Not public
Decision2026-05-27Not public
Decision2026-05-27Public
Decision2026-05-27Not public
Communication2026-05-26Not public
Receipt2026-03-12Not public
Cover sheet2026-03-12Not public
Document Respondent2026-03-12Not public
Oral procedure closed2026-02-26Not public
Hearing recording reference document2026-02-26Not public
Receipt2026-01-12Not public
Cover sheet2026-01-12Not public
Other document Appellant2026-01-12Not public
Order2026-01-08Not public
Order2026-01-08Public
Receipt2026-01-07Not public
Cover sheet2026-01-07Not public
Other document Respondent2026-01-07Not public
Order2026-01-06Not public
Order2026-01-06Public
Receipt2026-01-05Not public
Cover sheet2026-01-05Not public
Other document Appellant2026-01-05Not public
Oral procedure opened2025-12-29Not public
Written procedure closed2025-12-29Not public
Order2025-12-29Not public
Order2025-12-29Public
Receipt2025-12-19Not public
Cover sheet2025-12-19Not public
Order2025-12-19Not public
Order2025-12-19Public
Other document Appellant2025-12-19Not public
Order2025-12-05Not public
Order2025-12-05Public
Cover sheet2025-12-04Not public
Statement of Response2025-12-04Not public
Exhibit document Respondent2025-12-04Not public
Exhibit document Respondent2025-12-04Not public
Other document Respondent2025-12-04Not public
Exhibit document Respondent2025-12-04Not public
Exhibit document Respondent2025-12-04Not public
Receipt2025-12-04Not public
Cover sheet2025-12-02Not public
Other document Appellant2025-12-02Not public
Receipt2025-12-02Not public
Order2025-11-24Not public
Order2025-11-24Public
Cover sheet2025-11-20Not public
Application document Respondent2025-11-20Not public
Exhibit document Respondent2025-11-20Not public
Receipt2025-11-20Not public
Summons to oral hearing2025-11-10Not public
Summons2025-11-10Public
Cover sheet2025-11-05Not public
Other document Appellant2025-11-05Not public
Receipt2025-11-05Not public
Cover sheet2025-11-04Not public
Other document Respondent2025-11-04Not public
Receipt2025-11-04Not public
Order2025-10-31Not public
Order2025-10-31Public
Acknowledgement-of-lodging2025-09-09Not public
Acknowledgement-of-lodging2025-09-08Not public
Anlage_D23.12025-09-08Not public
Anlage_D242025-09-08Not public
Anlage_D232025-09-08Not public
Anlage_K82025-09-08Not public
Anlage_GRU12025-09-08Not public
Anlage_GRU32025-09-08Not public
Anlage_GRU42025-09-08Not public
Berufungsbegründung2025-09-08Not public
Anlage_GRU22025-09-08Not public
Panel-Appointment2025-08-22Not public
Panel-Appointment2025-07-14Not public
Receipt2025-07-14Not public
Acknowledgement-of-lodging2025-07-14Not public
Formal-checks_Notification-of-positive-outcome2025-07-14Not public
Korrigierte Berufungsschrift2025-07-14Not public
Berufung2025-07-14Not public
Formal-checks_Request-for-correction2025-07-08Not public
Acknowledgement-of-lodging2025-07-03Not public
Berufung2025-07-03Not public
Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • Both parties correctly argued that 'Umschalten' means switching permanently to external speed control while 'Zuschalten' means switching on an as-needed/temporary basis — both ultimately constitute a switch to exclusive external control — contrary to the Local Division's interpretation

    RespondentLegal basis: Claim construction from patent description (Abs. 10, 12, 14); Art. 69 EPC

  • Claim 1 is not patentable for lack of inventive step starting from D5 (DE 101 39 510 A1) combined with general technical knowledge that circulation pumps are centrifugal pumps with electric motors

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 56 EPCA; R. 222.2 RoP

  • The infringement action must be dismissed because the infringement allegations rely solely on the revoked claims (1, 5, 11) and the non-patentable auxiliary requests

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 25 UPCA

  • Feature 4.2 (electronic means to determine whether external control is connected) is satisfied by detection of an external control signal without requiring active detection of disconnection or a dedicated handshaking mechanism

    ClaimantLegal basis: Claim construction; patent description Abs. 12, 27–28
Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.

  • Claim 1 requires the means to be capable of both 'Umschalten' AND 'Zuschalten' cumulatively

    RespondentLegal basis: Claim construction — 'oder' (or) in claim 1 feature 4.1

  • The electronic means under feature 4.2 must actively detect the absence of external control and must include independent decision logic before switching

    RespondentLegal basis: Claim construction

  • New prior-art argument on appeal based on D5 as starting point in combination with D7 should be admitted as not being new (previously raised in reply to nullity counterclaim)

    RespondentLegal basis: R. 222.2 RoP

  • Proceedings should be stayed pending resolution of the separate nullity action filed by Shinhoo Europe S.r.l.

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 56(1) UPCA; R. 118.2(a) RoP

  • Claim 4 (sensor/microswitch detecting physical connector engagement) lacks inventive step over D5 and D6

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 56 EPCA

  • Claim 6 (external control can activate/deactivate self-learning setpoint adaptation) lacks inventive step over D5 combined with D1 or D12

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 56 EPCA

  • Claim 7 (external switching means to reset self-learning adaptation and/or modify control curves) lacks inventive step over D5 combined with D7

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 56 EPCA

  • Claim 9 (separate speed control signals from other signals on same line via separation means) lacks inventive step over D1 or D2 with general technical knowledge

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 56 EPCA

  • Claim 10 (means to identify which heating circuit is being circulated in a multi-circuit system) lacks inventive step over D5/D7

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 56 EPCA