UPC_CFI_351/2024

DEVELOPER REPLENISHING CONTAINER AND DEVELOPER REPLENISHING SYSTEM

InfringementMain Infringement ActionDusseldorf LDInfringementCase Closed

Overview Decisions Reasoning Citations Documents Timeline

Coverage: Partial.Reasoning extracted with partial coverage — some sections may be incomplete.

Plain-English summary

Canon Kabushiki Kaisha (Japan) sued Katun Germany GmbH, Katun (E.D.C.) B.V., Katun Corporation (US), and General Plastic Industrial Co. (Taiwan) for infringement of EP 3 686 683 B1, a patent for a developer (toner) supply container for printers. The Düsseldorf Local Division found the patent valid and infringed, dismissed the defendants' revocation counterclaim, and granted a pan-European injunction; notably, the court ordered defendants to publish the operative part of the judgment on their websites because they had used those websites to assert non-infringement.

Accepted arguments

What the court agreed with — by party.

Defendants (Katun/General Plastic) infringe EP 3 686 683 B1 by supplying compatible toner cartridges
ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 25 UPCA
Note: Court found infringement of Canon's developer supply container patent and granted an injunction plus publication of the decision on defendants' websites.
Defendants used their website to create impression of non-infringement, justifying mandatory website publication of decision
ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 80 UPCA
Note: Court held that where a defendant has actively used its website to deny infringement, requiring it to publish the operative part of the judgment on that website is justified under Art. 80 UPCA.

Rejected arguments

What the court did not agree with — and why.

Patent EP 3 686 683 B1 is invalid (counterclaim for revocation)
RespondentLegal basis: Art. 54, 56 EPC
Reason: Counterclaim for revocation dismissed in full.
Additional test-purchase evidence should be admitted as further pleading under R. 36 RoP
ClaimantLegal basis: R. 36 RoP
Reason: Test purchase was conducted in October 2024 before the deadline for the reply to the statement of defence; claimant was obliged to act without delay and include the results in the reply rather than seeking a later further round.

Key legal principles

Doctrines and rules cited in the reasoning.

Where a defendant uses its website to deny infringement, mandatory publication of the judgment on the defendant's website is justified under Art. 80 UPCA R. 36 RoP further pleading admission requires timely explanation for why evidence could not have been filed earlier EPO preliminary opposition opinion may be submitted as publicly available information, but parties cannot expand their arguments around it without R. 36 permission Feature breakdown of patent claims to be used at oral hearing to be communicated to parties in advance

Browse other cases on this principle.

Claim construction notes

The court adopted a detailed feature breakdown of claim 1 of EP 3 686 683 B1 (developer supply container), dividing the claim into features 1.1-1.6.2 including the moving mechanism (feature 1.6) and its sub-features: upward movement of supporting portion while supporting the supported portion (1.6.1) to bring receiving opening into communication with discharge opening during mounting operation (1.6.2). Claims 5 and 6 were also broken down regarding guiding means and rib/holding portion.