Mechanical — European UPC Patent Cases
108 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 4 · 108 total
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Europe GmbH
This UPC Court of Appeal decision involved multiple appeals concerning infringement and international jurisdiction related to a juice extractor patent. The court addressed complex procedural issues regarding how parties establish their choice of forum under Brussels Ia Regulation, while also reviewing the merits of the claims. Ultimately, the appeal decisions were partially set aside, confirming certain jurisdictional limitations but maintaining the financial value of the dispute at €675,000.
IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland GmbH v.Belparts Group N.V.
In this case, IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland GmbH initiated a revocation action against Belparts Group N.V. concerning patent EP3812870. While the proceedings progressed through interim conferences and even faced potential oral hearings, both parties ultimately reached an out-of-court settlement. The UPC Court of First Instance subsequently permitted the withdrawal of both the revocation action and the infringement counterclaim, declaring the case closed. This decision highlights the practical reality that settlements often supersede ongoing litigation in the UPC framework.
CUP&CINO Kaffeesystem-Vertrieb GmbH & Co. KG v.ALPINA Coffee Systems GmbH
This UPC Appeals Board decision addressed ALPINA's request for suspensive effect against the initial infringement judgment issued by the Local Court. ALPINA argued that immediate enforcement would cause irreparable harm, especially given ongoing parallel validity proceedings. However, the court rejected this argument, finding that ALPINA failed to provide concrete evidence of significant damages or specific costs associated with the alleged infringement and subsequent required modifications. The ruling reinforces the principle that procedural requests for suspension must be grounded in demonstrable, present disadvantages.
CUP&CINO Kaffeesystem-Vertrieb GmbH & Co. KG v.ALPINA Coffee Systems GmbH
This UPC decision, delivered by the Düsseldorf Local Chamber, addressed a complex infringement case concerning milk frothing technology. While the claimant sought an injunction and damages for patent infringement (EP 3 398 487 B1), the court ultimately dismissed the main claim. Crucially, the judgment provided important guidance on remedies, specifically clarifying that advertising materials are exempt from mandatory destruction under Art. 64(2)(e) UPC Agreement because they do not constitute 'relevant materials' used in production.
Messerle GmbH v.Sabert Corporation Europe S.A.
In this UPC case concerning food packaging (EP 3 705 415 B1), the court dismissed both the infringement action brought by Messerle GmbH and the counterclaim for revocation filed by Sabert Corporation Europe S.A. The decision highlighted critical procedural requirements under the UPC, stressing that parties must present their full factual case and evidence as early as possible to avoid challenges regarding timeliness. This ruling serves as a strong reminder to patent practitioners about the strict evidentiary standards required in front-loaded litigation.
Rematec GmbH & Co KG v.Europe Forestry B.V.
This UPC appellate decision involved a complex interplay between patent infringement and revocation proceedings. Although the respondent successfully argued for the invalidity of EP 2 548 648, leading to the dismissal of the infringement claim, the court still awarded the claimant a lump-sum damages payment of €20,000. The ruling also provided important procedural guidance on when an appellate court must render a final judgment in both revocation and infringement cases following an appeal.
Fives ECL, SAS v.REEL GmbH
In this UPC decision concerning a damages claim related to aluminum production technology, the court ultimately dismissed the claimant's request for compensation. However, the ruling provided significant commentary on the assessment of lost profits under the UPC framework, particularly when dealing with price reductions and the reasonableness of offers. The case highlights the complex interplay between national law (German) and the Unified Patent Court Agreement regarding damages claims.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & Co KG v.Bhagat Textile Engineers
This appeal court decision addresses a procedural matter concerning the release of security deposits in an ongoing patent dispute. Following a settlement agreement between Oerlikon and Bhagat regarding litigation costs, the Court of Appeal granted Oerlikon's request to have the €19,000 deposit released from Bhagat and transferred directly to Oerlikon's account. The ruling underscores the UPC's focus on procedural finality and facilitating amicable resolutions between parties.
Bobst Manchester Limited v.Nordmeccanica S.p.A.
This UPC CFI decision addressed a procedural application concerning the language of proceedings in an infringement case involving Nordmeccanica S.p.A. and Bobst Manchester Limited regarding EP3067437. The court ruled in favor of the defendant, granting the request to change the language from German to English. The ruling emphasized that when assessing fairness for a language change, the position of the defendant—who faces strict deadlines and must prepare its defense—is given decisive weight if interests are balanced.
Van Loon Beheer Nederland B.V. v.Inverquark Deutschland GmbH
In this UPC case concerning EP 3 653 275 B8, the court addressed a request for an additional expert report following an initial inspection and evidence preservation order. The Local Division of Düsseldorf denied the supplementary expert opinion, finding that the existing findings were sufficient and that the procedure did not necessitate further technical clarification at this stage. However, the court granted access to the unredacted version of the expert's detailed description, ensuring transparency for the claimant.
WhiteWater West Industries Inc. v.American Wave Machines, Inc.
In a significant procedural ruling, the UPC Central Division granted a decision by default against American Wave Machines, Inc., after they failed to file a defense in a revocation action concerning EP 2 728 089. The subsequent substantive analysis confirmed the Claimant's arguments, leading to the partial revocation of Claim 1. This case underscores the strict procedural requirements within the UPC and demonstrates how default judgments can be utilized when defendants fail to engage with proceedings.
Primetals Technologies Austria GmbH v.Danieli & C. S.p.A.
In this procedural case, Primetals Technologies sought an order compelling Danieli & C. S.p.A. to produce extensive technical and commercial documentation related to a plant in Vietnam that Primetals alleged infringed EP 2 624 977. The court ultimately rejected the request, finding that Primetals had not provided sufficient or plausible evidence to substantiate its claims of infringement. This decision underscores the high evidentiary threshold required when seeking discovery orders under UPC rules.
Grundfos Holding A/S v.Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd
This UPC appellate decision clarifies the strict application of Article 69(4) EPC regarding cost security. The court ruled that in appeal proceedings, only the appellant is considered the applicant for costs purposes. Consequently, Grundfos (the appellee/claimant in this specific context) was permitted to request security against Hefei (the appellant/respondent). This ruling reinforces the principle that cost security measures are designed to protect the party initiating the legal action from potential non-payment.
IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland GmbH v.Belparts Group N.V.
In a procedural order concerning revocation and infringement actions, the UPC Court of First Instance addressed IMI Hydronic Engineering's request for Belparts Group to provide security for costs. IMI argued that Belparts was economically vulnerable, citing losses in 2023. However, the court dismissed the request, emphasizing that the burden of proof rests on the applicant. The decision highlights the strict evidentiary requirements necessary to successfully obtain security for costs proceedings within the UPC framework.
Polidoro S.p.a. v.Bekaert Combustion Technology B.V.
Polidoro S.p.a. successfully sued Bekaert Combustion Technology for infringing its patent covering a specific type of premixed burner used in condensation boilers. The UPC Local Division Mannheim found infringement, leading to the granting of cease and desist orders against the Defendants across several UPCA member states. Although the initial claims were successful, the court also dismissed the counterclaim filed by the Defendants seeking revocation of the patent. This case highlights the dual nature of UPC proceedings, where infringement can be established while a revocation defense is simultaneously rejected.
M-A-S Maschinen- und Anlagenbau Schulz GmbH v.Altech Makina Sanayi ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi
In this UPC decision, the court addressed both an infringement claim and a counterclaim for patent revocation concerning a plastic purification device. The court dismissed the infringement suit, emphasizing that remedies like recall or destruction are generally inapplicable in cases of indirect infringement. Crucially, the ruling set high standards for provisional damages claims, requiring plausible factual support, and clarified the burden of proof in revocation actions, demanding detailed explanations of prior art combinations rather than mere citation.
BAUSSMANN Collated Fasteners GmbH v.Raimund Beck Nageltechnik GmbH
This UPC decision addresses a revocation action concerning a patent for specialized lignocellulosic fasteners. The court delivered key legal principles regarding inventive step, stressing that assessments must not be made retrospectively based on post-grant knowledge. Crucially, the ruling established that if the claimant voluntarily limits its attack scope (by not challenging certain claims), this limitation is binding on both the defendant and the court. Consequently, the patent was partially revoked in the specified member states.
Morello Forni Italia S.r.l. v.Gastroteam Abbe AB
In a significant default judgment, the UPC Local Division of Milan found both Gastroteam Abbe AB and Salvatore Marciuliano liable for infringing EP 3691454 B1, which covers pizza dough shaping methods and apparatus. The court granted an injunction and awarded provisional damages totaling €56,000, alongside a penalty per infringing product. This case highlights the procedural rigor of UPC default judgments, emphasizing that even when a defendant is absent, the claimant must meet the full burden of proof.
Komax Holding AG v.Jiangsu BOZHIWANG Automation Equipment Co., Ltd.
Komax Holding AG sought provisional measures to inspect the respondent's automated cable processing machine, 'BZW-3005,' at a trade fair in Munich, alleging potential infringement of EP 3 024 099 B1. The claimant argued that prior attempts to examine the machine were impossible due to security and access restrictions. However, the Local Division ultimately rejected the application for inspection and evidence preservation. This decision highlights the stringent procedural hurdles required to obtain urgent investigative measures within the UPC framework.
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH v.STEROS GPA INNOVATIVE S.L.
In a procedural ruling, the Düsseldorf Local Division addressed an application for inspection and evidence preservation concerning EP 2 983 864 B1. The court granted the claimant access to the unredacted expert report following the on-site investigation at the respondent's trade show booth. However, this order is conditional: the claimant must file a main infringement action against STEROS within a strict deadline, otherwise, the preservation measures will lapse.
American Wave Machines, Inc. v.Surftown GmbH
In this procedural order, the UPC Local Division rejected Surftown GmbH's attempt to extend critical deadlines in a complex infringement/revocation case involving wave machine technology. The Defendants argued that delays caused by confidentiality procedures unfairly disadvantaged them compared to the Claimant. However, the Court firmly maintained that extensions must be based on genuine legal complications or hindrances, not simply on comparative timing advantages. This decision reinforces the UPC's commitment to strict adherence to procedural timelines and efficient case management.
Dolle A/S v.FAKRO Dachflächenfenster GmbH, FAKRO Dachfenster GmbH, FAKRO Danmark A/S, FAKRO Sp.z.o.o.
This Lokalkammer decision addressed a patent infringement suit concerning a roof hatch/staircase (Dachbodentreppe). While the claim for infringement was ultimately dismissed, the court delivered crucial legal guidance. The ruling reinforced the strict 'direct and unambiguous derivation' standard for determining if an invention is the same as one in an earlier application under Article 87 EPC. It also set a clear procedural boundary, prohibiting parties from introducing validity arguments (like lack of inventive step) during oral hearings.
IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland GmbH v.Belparts Group N.V.
This procedural order addressed a request by Belparts Group N.V. to join its counterclaim for infringement (pending before the CD Paris) with IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland GmbH's revocation action (before the CD Paris), and subsequently, to refer another case between divisions. The Court ultimately rejected this connection joinder request. This decision underscores the strict interpretation of R. 340 RoP, emphasizing that procedural choices made by parties must align with the core principles of efficient justice and avoiding conflicting decisions.
Van Loon Beheer Nederland B.V. v.Inverquark Deutschland GmbH
Van Loon Beheer Nederland B.V. sought provisional measures to inspect and preserve evidence related to the 'InverJet' product manufactured by Inverquark Deutschland GmbH, alleging patent infringement of EP 3 653 275 B8 (Counter-Current Swimming Device). The court examined the request for inspection at a trade fair booth but ultimately dismissed the application. This decision highlights the stringent procedural requirements under the UPC for obtaining evidence preservation measures prior to filing main infringement proceedings.
Prinoth S.p.A. v.Xelom s.r.l.
This UPC decision concerns a motion to review an urgent order for evidence preservation, inspection, and seizure granted by Prinoth S.p.A. against Xelom s.r.l. The dispute centers on alleged infringement of patents related to snow groomers (battipista). The Tribunal upheld the original protective measure, emphasizing that preliminary injunctions based on urgency require only a statistical likelihood of evidence destruction, not concrete proof. This ruling provides important guidance on the scope and quantification of damages in urgent IP proceedings.
PROGRESS MASCHINEN & AUTOMATION AG v.AWM s.r.l.
In a significant decision, the UPC Court of First Instance revoked patent EP 2726230 B1 after finding that prior art disclosures by AWM s.r.l., through the marketing of older JIT machines, invalidated the claims. The infringement action brought by Progress Maschinen & Automation AG was subsequently dismissed. This case underscores the critical importance of thorough prior art searches and the impact of pre-filing commercial activity on patent validity in UPC proceedings.
Raccords et Plastiques Nicoll v.First Plast France, First Plast S.R.L., First Corporation, Plasticos First Iberica S.L.
In a significant ruling for the plastics industry, the UPC Local Division of Paris dismissed Raccords et Plastiques Nicoll's infringement action against the First group. The case centered on the 'Connecto®invisible' hydraulic gutter grille technology (EP3272938). Despite detailed claims regarding manufacturing and offering infringing products, the court found no evidence of literal or equivalent infringement. Furthermore, RPN was ordered to cover the respondents' legal costs provisionally.
Hartmann Packaging A/S v.Omni-Pac Ekco GmbH Verpackungsmittel a. o.
In this UPC case concerning egg packaging technology (EP 2 755 901 B1), Hartmann Packaging A/S sued Omni-Pac Ekco GmbH for infringement and simultaneously filed a revocation counterclaim. The Düsseldorf Local Division ultimately dismissed the infringement claim, finding no violation of the patent rights. Crucially, the court also rejected the revocation counterclaim, affirming the validity of the patent while providing important guidance on interpreting 'the same invention' under Article 87 EPC.
Wonderland Nurserygoods Co., Ltd. v.Cybex GmbH
This UPC decision addresses a procedural challenge regarding the scope of infringement claims in a stroller patent case (EP 1 905 615). The Defendants challenged the Claimant's attempt to extend its argument from literal infringement to equivalence for additional features. The Panel ultimately upheld the initial order, confirming that expanding the equivalence argument does not fundamentally alter the nature or scope of the dispute. This ruling provides clarity on how the doctrine of equivalence can be applied procedurally within UPC case management.
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Europe GmbH
Hurom Co., Ltd. successfully pursued an infringement action against NUC Electronics Europe GmbH and WARMCOOK regarding the juice extractor patent EP 2 028 981. The Local Division Mannheim granted injunctive relief for specific national parts of the patent, finding that the Defendants' slow juicers infringed the claims. This decision is significant as it reinforces the enforcement capabilities of the UPC in complex mechanical product infringement cases.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.