Short Summary
Horl 1993 GmbH, a family business specializing in knife sharpening devices, sued Magna-Tec e.K. before the Local Chamber Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court for infringement of EP 4 117 857 B1, which protects a roller sharpener (Rollschleifer). The claimant alleged that the defendant's product 'Trinity-S' infringed claims 1 and 14 of the patent. The court largely upheld the claimant's requests, granting injunctive relief, recall, information, destruction, provisional damages of EUR 3,000, and publication of the judgment, while partially dismissing certain claims and allocating costs with the defendant bearing two-thirds.
Detailed Summary
This case concerns a patent infringement action (UPC_CFI_388/2025) brought before the Local Chamber Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court, decided on May 6, 2026, following an oral hearing on March 19, 2026.
The claimant, Horl 1993 GmbH (a family business based in Freiburg, represented by managing directors Timo Horl and Marjorie Horl), is the registered proprietor of European Patent EP 4 117 857 B1, which protects a 'Rollschleifer' — a device for grinding and/or polishing the cutting edge of a cutting tool, particularly a household knife. The patent was filed on March 9, 2021, claiming priority from DE 10 2020 203 144 of March 11, 2020. The application was published on January 18, 2023, and the patent was granted on April 24, 2024, with unitary effect registered on May 3, 2024. No opposition was filed. The patent is in force in Germany, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Latvia, Malta, the Netherlands, Portugal, Sweden, Slovenia, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Spain, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Norway, and Turkey.
Claim 1 of the patent relates to a device comprising a handle, at least one roller rotatable relative to the handle, and at least one disc rotatable relative to the handle for grinding/polishing the cutting edge, characterized in that the disc is rotatable at a different rotational speed/angular velocity than the roller. Claim 14 relates to a system comprising such a device together with a device for fixing the cutting edge during grinding/polishing.
The defendant, Magna-Tec e.K. (a registered merchant based in Hallbergmoos, owned by Stefan Stegschuster), has been developing and selling knife sharpening devices since 2011, including the product 'Trinity-S,' which the claimant identified as the contested embodiment.
The claimant sent a cease and desist letter on March 3, 2025. The defendant rejected the allegation of patent infringement and refused to provide a cease and desist declaration with penalty clause.
The claimant sought injunctive relief (Request I) covering both UPCA contracting member states and non-UPCA countries (Switzerland/Liechtenstein, Spain, UK, Ireland, Norway, and Turkey), as well as recall (Request II), information and rendering of accounts (Request III), destruction (Request IV), delivery of recall letters (Request V), destruction under threat of penalty (Request VI), publication of the judgment in the specialist journal 'MESSER MAGAZIN' (Request VII), a declaration of liability for damages (Request VIII), provisional damages of EUR 3,000 (Request IX), and other ancillary relief.
The court established two key legal principles (Leitsätze): (1) To substantiate claims relating to countries outside the UPCA, sufficiently detailed facts must be presented to enable the court to make a reliable assessment of patent infringement in non-UPCA countries; and (2) A right to publication of the judgment exists if the claimant has a legitimate interest in such publication, which may be the case if the claimant's product and the contested embodiment are described negatively in a comparison on the patent infringer's website, while the contested embodiment is highlighted positively in terms of its characteristics in a specialist journal.
In its operative order, the court granted injunctive relief, recall, information, destruction, and provisional damages of EUR 3,000, and permitted publication of the judgment in 'MESSER MAGAZIN.' The court also declared the defendant's liability for damages arising from the infringing acts since April 24, 2024. The remaining claims were dismissed (Request X). The court rejected the claimant's request for review of the procedural order of April 20, 2026 (Request XI). Costs were allocated with the defendant bearing two-thirds and the claimant one-third (Request XII). The dispute value was set at EUR 250,000 (Request XIII). Enforcement of the orders under Requests I and IV through VI and IX was made conditional upon the claimant notifying the court of which portions it intends to enforce and providing certified translations into the official language of the relevant contracting member state (Request XIV).
The panel consisted of Presiding Judge Sabine Klepsch (also rapporteur), legally qualified judges Dr. Stefan Schilling and Peter Agergaard, and technically qualified judge Max Tilmann. The decision is subject to appeal within two months of service.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Horl 1993 GmbH vs Magna-Tec e.K. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Industriebeteiligungs- und Beratungs GmbH & OthersvsWashtower IP B.V. & Washtower B.V.
This is a procedural order from the Court of Appeal concerning an appeal against an order of the Court of First Instance (The Hague Local Division) dated 11 September 2025, relating to European Patent EP 3 522 755. The appellants requested a two-week extension of the deadline for filing their Statement of Grounds of Appeal, citing professional constraints including an EPO oral hearing. The Court of Appeal granted a limited extension of three working days, extending the deadline from 26 September 2025 to 1 October 2025.
Yangtze Memory Technologies Co., Ltd.vsMicron Technology, Inc. et al.
Yangtze Memory Technologies Co., Ltd. (Claimant) brought a patent infringement action against four Micron entities (Defendants) concerning EP 3 909 047 before the Düsseldorf Local Division. The Claimant sought a confidentiality order under Art. 58 UPCA and R. 262A RoP to protect a TechInsights report it wished to submit as evidence, which was subject to US export control restrictions preventing disclosure to the Claimant itself. The Defendants opposed, arguing the report was publicly available and the Claimant had not met its burden of proof. The Court granted the confidentiality order, finding the conditions of R. 262A RoP were satisfied and that the parties could waive the requirement for a natural person from the Claimant to be included in the confidentiality club.
CARDO SYSTEMS Ltd.vsSHENZHEN ASMAX INFINITE TECHNOLOGY Co. Ltd. and HONG KONG YIHENG INTERNATIONAL TECHNOLOGY Co. Limited
CARDO SYSTEMS Ltd., proprietor of European Patent EP 4 240 194 relating to a fastening device for head-protective gear, obtained a default judgment against Shenzhen Asmax and Hong Kong Yiheng for infringement of the patent through their Z1-ASMAX and F1-ASMAX products. After the defendants failed to file any defence or enter an appearance despite valid service, the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Milan Local Division) granted injunctive relief, an interim award for damages of €56,000, and an interim award for costs of €28,000, jointly and severally against both defendants.
Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd. and OthersvsTelefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL)
This is an order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning appeals filed by Shenzhen Transsion entities against an order of The Hague Local Division granting Ericsson's confidentiality application in FRAND-related patent infringement proceedings involving three European patents in the field of 4G LTE and 5G NR technology. The Court of Appeal considered whether the Court of First Instance had the power to grant leave to appeal after the 15-day time limit under R. 220.2/220.3 RoP had expired. The Court held that the CFI's later grant of leave did not alter the fact that leave was deemed refused due to the expiry of the time limit, and invited parties to comment on whether the original request could be treated as a request for discretionary review under R. 220.3 RoP.
Nokia Technologies Oy & Nokia Solutions and Networks OyvsZhejiang Geely Holding Group Co., Ltd. & Hangzhou Geely New Energy Vehicle Sales Co. Ltd.
This case before the Local Chamber Mannheim concerned an application for provisional measures, specifically an 'Anti-Anti Suit Injunction,' filed by Nokia entities against Geely entities regarding European Patents EP 3 799 333 and EP 4 090 075. After the injunction was granted ex parte on April 20, 2026, and security of €600,000 was deposited, the applicants withdrew the application with the respondents' consent. The court allowed the withdrawal, terminated the proceedings, and ordered the full release of the security deposit.
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.