Short Summary
The plaintiff, an Austrian machine and plant engineering company, sought permission to serve its infringement complaint on a Turkish defendant at the defendant's trade fair stand at the PRS Europe fair in Amsterdam on June 19/20, 2024. The court held that under Rule 271.5(a) of the Rules of Procedure, service may be effected at any location within contracting member states where a company has a permanent or temporary business establishment, and that a trade fair stand qualifies as such when, as is typically the case, deliveries are also promoted there. The court ordered service at the specified trade fair address and directed the plaintiff to initially bear the costs of such service.
Detailed Summary
The plaintiff, M-A-S Maschinen- und Anlagenbau Schulz GmbH, an Austrian company based in Pucking, Austria, filed an infringement action concerning European Patent No. EP 2 061 575 B1 against the defendant, Altech Makina Sanayi ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi, a Turkish company based in Esenyurt/Istanbul. The plaintiff was represented by attorney Dr. Dirk Jestaedt of Krieger Mes Partnerschaft mbB in Düsseldorf, with patent attorney Bernhard Ganahl assisting. The presiding judge, Ronny Thomas, issued the order on behalf of the reporting judge, Dr. Thom. The language of the proceedings was German.
The plaintiff requested that the complaint, filed on June 14, 2024, be served on the defendant at the PRS Europe trade fair scheduled for June 19/20, 2024 in Amsterdam, at the defendant's stand G42. The plaintiff argued that service at the trade fair would expedite the proceedings and that the trade fair stand constituted a temporary business establishment of the defendant, making it a permissible location for service. The plaintiff further emphasized that the allegedly infringing embodiment was being exhibited at the same fair, making service there particularly appropriate.
& Analysis
The court applied Rule 271.5(a) of the Rules of Procedure, which permits service at any location within the contracting member states where a company or other legal entity has a permanent or temporary business establishment. The court reasoned that a trade fair stand can constitute a temporary business establishment if, as is typically the case, deliveries are also promoted there. The court cited supporting commentary from Tilman/Plassmann/v. Falck/Stoll and Luginbühl/Hüttermann/M. Meyer in support of this interpretation. Finding no contrary indications on the record, the court concluded that the trade fair stand qualified as a permissible location for service.
Final Order & Ruling
The court ordered that the complaint filed on June 14, 2024 be served on the defendant at the PRS Europe trade fair on June 19/20, 2024 in Amsterdam at the address: Messe Amsterdam, Europaplein 24, 1078 GZ Amsterdam, Stand: G42. The court further directed that the costs of the trade fair service be initially borne directly by the plaintiff. The order was issued in Düsseldorf on June 17, 2024, and digitally signed by Presiding Judge Ronny Thomas.
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 M-A-S Maschinen- und Anlagenbau Schulz GmbH vs Respondent is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Bostic, Inc.vsHenkel France, Henkel France Operations, Henkel technologies France, Henkel AG & Co KGaA, Henkel Nederland B.V, Henkel Italia S.r.l
This case concerns a patent infringement dispute between Bostik, Inc. and several Henkel entities regarding European Patent EP 1 725 627 B1. Bostik alleges that certain Henkel products in the Liofol® range infringe its patent, while Henkel has filed a counterclaim seeking revocation of the patent. The Court of First Instance held an interim conference on 1 June 2026, during which the parties discussed the main legal issues including claim interpretation, patent validity, alleged infringement acts, and corrective measures.
CENTRIPETAL LIMITEDvsPALO ALTO NETWORKS, INC.
This is an order issued by the Court of Appeal concerning an application for the preservation of evidence and inspection of premises under Article 60 UPCA. The order sets out general legal principles regarding the standard of proof required for such applications, the distinction between preservation of evidence proceedings and merits proceedings, and the need to balance the applicant's interest in effective enforcement against the defendant's fundamental rights. The text provided contains only the headnotes of the decision and is cut off before the full reasoning and operative part are disclosed.
Angelalign Technology Inc., Angelalign France Technology SASU, Europe Angelalign Technology B.V., Angelalign Technology (Germany) GmbH, Italy Angelalign Technology S.R.L., Shanghai EA Medical Instruments Co., Ltd.vsAlign Technology, Inc.
Angelalign sought discretionary review (R. 220.3 RoP) of a procedural order issued by the Local Division Düsseldorf in provisional measures proceedings concerning EP 4 346 690, which had disregarded certain non-infringement arguments and exhibits from Angelalign's Rejoinder. The Court of Appeal, sitting as a standing judge, dismissed the request, finding that Angelalign had failed to substantiate why the impugned order was manifestly erroneous and that allowing the request would disrupt the scheduled first-instance oral hearing.
Dolby International ABvsCPYou B.V. / Acer et al.
This procedural order concerns the rectification of an obvious error in a prior order dated 1 May 2026. The parties agreed that the Defendants' application under R. 190 erroneously referred to 'Acer' where 'Vectis' (the Intervener) was intended, as evidenced by the use of 'Dolby and/or Vectis' elsewhere in the application. The Court, applying R. 353 RoP, rectified the error by replacing 'Dolby and Acer' with 'Dolby and Vectis' on pages 3 and 7 of the earlier order.
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SAvsModerna Netherlands B.V., Moderna Biotech Distributor UK Ltd
This order concerns proceedings involving two divisional European patents (EP4066856 and EP4226941) owned by GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA (GSK) against multiple Moderna entities. Both patents were revoked at the European Patent Office: EP941 by the Opposition Division on June 24, 2026, and EP856 by the Technical Board of Appeal on July 20, 2026, both for lack of novelty. The Court disposed of the counterclaim action regarding EP856 as devoid of purpose, ordered GSK to bear Moderna's costs, and postponed its decision on whether to stay the remaining proceedings pending the written grounds of the TBA decision.
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.