Executive Summary
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.
What the Court Held — Ratio Decidendi
The court clarified that 'the same invention' under Article 87 EPC requires the skilled person to derive the claimed subject matter directly and unambiguously from the earlier application using common general knowledge, establishing a strict disclosure standard for added matter. Furthermore, selecting suitable materials from a limited range of known options is generally not considered an inventive step.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division. Understanding the court's reasoning in Hartmann Packaging A/S vs Omni-Pac Ekco GmbH Verpackungsmittel a. o. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Centripetal LimitedvsPalo Alto Networks, Inc.
In a significant decision for cybersecurity IP, the UPC Local Division Mannheim revoked European Patent EP 3 652 914 B1. The patent, which covered methods for accelerating cyberanalysis workflows using machine learning and threat logs, was invalidated due to lack of inventive step in its amended claims. This revocation led directly to the dismissal of the concurrent infringement action brought by Centripetal Ltd. against Palo Alto Networks, Inc., highlighting the critical interplay between validity challenges and enforcement actions within the UPC framework.
Hyler BVvsCretes NV
This decision from the Brussels Local Division confirms a settlement agreement reached between Hyler BV and Cretes NV, effectively ending both the infringement and validity proceedings. The court formally validated the terms of the settlement regarding cost distribution. Crucially, it ordered each party to receive a refund of €2,000 related to the termination of their respective actions.
Van Loon Beheer Nederland B.V.vsInverquark 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.
Fujifilm CorporationvsKodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, and Kodak Holding GmbH
In a procedural order concerning EP 3 476 616, the UPC Local Division Mannheim separated the infringement proceedings related to the UK national part. This decision was driven by the pending ECJ ruling (C-339/22) on international jurisdiction under Brussels Ia Regulation. The court aimed to balance the need for timely enforcement of patent rights against the necessity of properly addressing a fundamental question of European law, ensuring both parties have an opportunity to comment on the ECJ's decision.
10x Genomics, Inc.vsCurio Bioscience Inc.
In a procedural order concerning cost proceedings, the Düsseldorf Local Division of the UPC granted protection for confidential information submitted by 10x Genomics against Curio Bioscience. The court ruled that specific cost items were indeed trade secrets and restricted access to them. This decision reinforces the practical application of Art. 58 UPCA, balancing the need for confidentiality with the right to an effective remedy in complex litigation.
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.