Evac Oy v. Shanghai VacDrain Vaccuum Drainage Equipment Co., Ltd., VD Solutions GmbH, Herrn Yong Cao

This case was decided by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf (Lokalkammer Düsseldorf) of the Unified Patent Court under case number UPC_CFI_811/2024, with the decision announced on 22 June 2026 following an oral hearing on 19 May 2026. The presiding judge was Thomas (as rapporteur), joined by legally qualified judges Dr. Schumacher and Agergaard. The language of proceedings was German.

The claimant, Evac Oy, a Finnish company represented by its CEO Björn Ullbro, sued three defendants: (1) Shanghai VacDrain Vacuum Drainage Equipment Co., Ltd. (a Chinese company based in Shanghai), (2) VD Solutions GmbH (a German company based in Hamburg), and (3) Mr. Yong Cao (based in Budapest, Hungary). The action concerned alleged infringement of two European patents: EP 1 840 282 B1 ('Streitpatent I') and EP 1 813 734 B1 ('Streitpatent II'), both titled 'Vacuum sewer system.' Streitpatent I was filed on 8 February 2007 claiming priority from FI 20065209 of 31 March 2006, with grant published on 29 April 2015, and was in force in Germany, Finland, France, Italy, and the Netherlands. Streitpatent II was filed on 15 December 2006 claiming priority from FI 20065059 of 30 January 2006, with grant published on 9 November 2016, and was in force in Germany and Finland. An opt-out was filed for both patents on 9 June 2023 and withdrawn by the claimant on 14 December 2023.

Streitpatent I's claim 1 relates to a discharge valve including an aeration means for a vacuum sewer system, featuring a rapid vent valve with a valve plate that opens and closes against a valve seat to rapidly close the discharge valve after a discharge or flushing sequence. Streitpatent II's claim 1 relates to a vacuum sewer system comprising a vacuum buffer means with an active buffer device that changes modes to provide additional vacuum for governing the discharge valve.

The central legal issue addressed in the headnote concerned Article 72 UPCA, which provides that actions relating to all forms of financial compensation may not be brought more than five years after the applicant became aware, or had reasonable grounds to become aware, of the last fact justifying the action. The court held that this limitation period does not apply to injunctions, as an injunction is directed towards the future and is therefore not subject to the limitation period. The keywords identified were: limitation period, agreement, forfeiture, de facto business succession, and exhaustion of rights.

In its operative decision, the court found that Defendants 1 and 3 had infringed European Patent EP 1 840 282 B1 with respect to certain infringing products. The court granted injunctive relief prohibiting the defendants from offering, placing on the market, using, importing, exporting, or stocking the infringing products. The court also ordered Defendants 1 and 3 to recall the infringing products from commercial customers, to remove the products from distribution channels by informing commercial customers to cancel orders, and to destroy all infringing products in their possession. The defendants were ordered to provide information and accounting regarding the infringing acts and to compensate the claimant for damages.

The court imposed coercive penalties of at least EUR 1,000 per infringing product for violations of the injunction and at least EUR 500 per day for violations of the recall and destruction orders. The court further declared that Defendants 1 and 3 are liable in principle to compensate the claimant for any further damages arising from past and future infringing acts. The remainder of the claim was dismissed. Costs were allocated with the claimant bearing 30% and Defendants 1 and 3 bearing 70%. The dispute value was set at EUR 1,000,000. The orders under specific provisions were declared enforceable only after the claimant notified the court of which portions it intended to enforce and, where necessary, submitted certified translations.