UPC_CFI_351/2024

DEVELOPER REPLENISHING CONTAINER AND DEVELOPER REPLENISHING SYSTEM

InfringementMain Infringement ActionDusseldorf LDInfringementCase Closed

Overview Decisions Reasoning Citations Documents Timeline

This case cites

Authorities cited within the decisions on file for this case.

Rules of Procedure · 8

Target	Legal point	Strength	Excerpt
36	claim construction — further exchange of written pleadings	Binding	According to R. 36 RoP, on a reasoned request by a party lodged before the date on which the judge-rapporteur intends to close the written procedure, the judge-rapporteur may allow the exchange of further written pleadings
109.1	language regime — request for simultaneous interpretation	Binding	The Claimant's request is admissible. It was lodged on 8 December 2025 and thus within the one-month period specified in R. 109.1 RoP.
109.2	language regime — court-ordered simultaneous interpretation	Binding	The Defendants request, to reject Claimant's request for simultaneous interpretation into Japanese during the oral hearing according to R. 109.2 RoP.
109.4	language regime — party-arranged interpretation at own expense	Binding	The Defendants do not object to the Claimant engaging an interpreter at its own expense pursuant to R. 109.4 RoP, or to the presence of an interpreter during the oral hearing.
118.5	costs — ceiling of recoverable costs	Binding	According to Art. 69(1) UPCA in conjunction with R. 118.5 RoP, a decision on costs has to be made.
152.2	costs — Administrative Committee table for maximum recoverable costs	Binding	the table adopted by the Administrative Committee on April 24, 2023, on the basis of R. 152.2 RoP, which neither party has objected to in the oral hearing, the maximum limit for reimbursable costs is determined at € 600,000.
37.1	jurisdiction — early decision on Art. 33(3) UPCA bifurcation question	Binding	SUBJECT OF THE PROCEEDINGS: R. 37.1 RoP, Art. 33(3) UPCA
37.2	jurisdiction — panel power to take early decision on bifurcation	Binding	According to R. 37.2 RoP, the panel may by order take an earlier decision having considered the parties

EPC article · 5

Target	Legal point	Strength	Excerpt
80	infringement — publication of decision including obligation on defendant to publish on website	Binding	If a defendant has used its own website to create the impression that there has been no patent infringement, it may be justified under Art. 80 UPCA to not only allow the claimant to publish the Court's decision, but also to require the defendant to publish the operative part
25(b)	infringement — offering for use of method by third parties	Binding	The offering for use mentioned in Art. 25 (b) UPCA aims at the offering of the process implemented by third parties for who the Defendants need to sign responsibility.
69(1)	costs — decision on costs required	Binding	According to Art. 69(1) UPCA in conjunction with R. 118.5 RoP, a decision on costs has to be made.
73(1)	jurisdiction — right of appeal within two months	Background	An appeal against this decision may be brought before the Court of Appeal by any party whose claims have been unsuccessful, in whole or in part, within two months of service of the decision (Art. 73(1) UPCA, R. 220.1(a) RoP, 224.1(a) RoP).
33(3)	jurisdiction — bifurcation between local and central division	Binding	Pursuant to R. 37.2 RoP, the Panel takes an earlier decision on the question of how to proceed with regard to Art. 33(3) UPCA before the end of the written procedure.

UPC Court of Appeal · 1

Target	Legal point	Strength	Excerpt
UPC_CoA_520/2024	claim construction — principles of due process guiding R.36 RoP decisions	Binding	it must be considered whether the exchange of further written submissions is required in accordance with the principles of due process ... (UPC_CoA_520/2024, Order of 1 November 2024, para 19 – Scandit

Cited by

Subsequent UPC decisions citing this case.

Not yet cited in another decision in our corpus.