Short Summary
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court in a patent infringement action concerning water dosing devices marketed as 'PARKSIDE® Wasser-Dosiergerät.' The claimant, Collomix GmbH, sought permission to submit a physical example of the accused embodiment after filing the claim. The court granted the request, holding that the Rules of Procedure contain no principle preventing a claimant from submitting evidence for facts alleged in the claim after the claim has been filed.
Detailed Summary
This order was issued by the Reporting Judge (Berichterstatter) Tobias Günther Pichlmaier of the Local Chamber Munich on November 21, 2024, in case UPC_CFI_550/2024.
The claimant, Collomix GmbH (based in Gaimersheim, Germany), filed the infringement action on September 24, 2024, naming water dosing devices sold under the model designation 'PARKSIDE® Wasser-Dosiergerät' as the accused embodiments. The defendants are Lidl Digital Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, Lidl Dienstleistung GmbH & Co. KG, and Delta-Sport Handelskontor GmbH. Service of the claim on the defendants was recorded in the CMS on October 18, 2024.
By submission dated October 24, 2024, the claimant requested permission to present the court with a physical example of the accused embodiment 'PARKSIDE® Wasser-Dosiergerät,' including its original packaging, operating instructions, and a suitable screwdriver. The Reporting Judge gave the defendants the opportunity to comment in writing.
Defendants 1 and 2 (the Lidl entities), represented by Karsten Königer, objected by submission dated November 20, 2024, arguing that under Rule 171.1 of the Rules of Procedure, the indication of evidence and the request for submission of physical evidence should have been made together with the statement of claim. They further argued that infringement had already been disputed pre-litigation. Defendant 3 (Delta-Sport) did not submit any comments.
The court granted the claimant's request. Relying on Rule 172.2 of the Rules of Procedure, the court reasoned that this provision allows the court to order at any stage of the proceedings that a party submit evidence in its possession relating to a fact it alleges. The court found that the claimant alleges that the 'PARKSIDE® Wasser-Dosiergerät' is offered and sold by defendants 1 and 2, and that the patent in suit is infringed by that device. The claimant further stated that it is in possession of such a device. These facts satisfied the requirements of Rule 172.2 sentence 1.
The court rejected the defendants' argument, holding that a pre-litigation denial of a factual allegation does not automatically mean that corresponding evidence can only be indicated with the claim and may no longer be submitted at a later stage. The court noted that defendants 1 and 2 had not, in any event, denied offering the 'PARKSIDE® Wasser-Dosiergerät.'
The court further reasoned that while parties are expected to present their arguments as early and completely as possible (paragraph 7 of the preamble to the Rules of Procedure), the Rules contain no principle that evidence for factual allegations of the claimant may not be submitted after the filing of the claim. The court noted that otherwise Rules 103.1(c), 104(e), 172.2, and 114 would have no basis. The court also distinguished between the submission of evidence and the question of whether it can be considered in the decision.
Finally, the court emphasized that the Reporting Judge has the duty to make all necessary preparations to avoid later adjournment of the oral hearing for the purpose of inviting further evidence (Rule 114), and that Rule 172.2 serves this purpose.
The operative order directed the claimant to submit to the court a physical example of the accused embodiment 'PARKSIDE® Wasser-Dosiergerät,' including its original packaging, operating instructions, and a suitable screwdriver.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Munich (DE) Local Division. Understanding the court's reasoning in Collomix GmbH vs Lidl Digital Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, Lidl Dienstleistung GmbH & Co. KG, and Delta-Sport Handelskontor GmbH is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Amycel LLCvsSzymon Spyra (UPC_CFI_499/2024)
The Local Division The Hague of the Unified Patent Court rejected an application by the Defendant, Szymon Spyra, for re-establishment of rights under Rule 320 RoP after his representative filed the Statement of Defence nine days late due to claimed illness. The court found that the representative, an experienced patent attorney familiar with UPC proceedings, failed to take all due care to ensure deadlines would be met in the event of his incapacity. Consequently, the Statement of Defence was deemed not filed, and a decision by default was ordered in the infringement action concerning EP1993350.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & Co. KGvsBhagat Textile Engineers
Following a merits decision in favor of Oerlikon Textile GmbH & Co. KG against Bhagat Textile Engineers concerning patent EP2145848, Oerlikon sought rectification under Rule 353 of the Rules of Procedure of a costs decision that had awarded €80,000.00 in reimbursable costs. Oerlikon argued that an additional €20,000.00 for the merits phase should have been added to reach a total of €100,000.00. The Court rejected the application, finding that the €80,000.00 figure was consistent throughout both the operative part and the reasoning of the costs decision, and that the contested phrase was merely a typographical error that did not affect the overall calculation.
Belparts Group N.V.vsIMI Hydronic International SA, IMI Hydronic Engineering AB
Procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance scheduling proceedings in an infringement action concerning European patent no. 3 812 870. The panel decided not to bifurcate the proceedings and will hear both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation together, setting an interim videoconference for 24 March 2026 and an in-person oral hearing in Munich for 18 June 2026.
Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG and OthersvsOna Patents SL
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court set aside an order of the President of the Court of First Instance that had rejected Apple's request to change the language of proceedings from German to English in infringement proceedings concerning EP 2 263 098. The Court of Appeal held that fairness required English to be used as the language of proceedings, given that the patent was granted in English, Apple's internal working language and technical support were in English, and Ona Patents would not face any disadvantage from a change to English.
Panasonic Holdings CorporationvsXiaomi Inc. et al.
This is an order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court in a patent infringement case concerning European Patent EP 3 024 163, brought by Panasonic Holdings Corporation against multiple Xiaomi entities. The order addresses Panasonic's request for confidentiality protection (Rule 262A RoP) in connection with its application for an order to produce documents against itself, and the defendants' requests to modify the provisional confidentiality order issued on 09/05/2024.
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.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.