Short Summary
This case concerns an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation regarding European Patent EP 3 156 843 B1, brought by Quantificare S.A. against five Canfield Scientific entities and ESTHETEC SAS before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf. The patent, which relates to a French-language European patent granted in 2018, is in force in Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, and the Netherlands. The key legal issue addressed is whether establishing an infringing act in one Contracting Member State is sufficient to issue an order covering all Contracting Member States where the patent is in force, including where the patent proprietor carves out claims for procedural reasons.
Detailed Summary
The plaintiff, Quantificare S.A., a French company based in Valbonne, filed an infringement action against five defendants: Canfield Scientific GmbH (Germany), Canfield Scientific, Inc. (USA), Canfield Scientific Europe, BV (Netherlands), Canfield Scientific s.r.l. (Italy), and ESTHETEC SAS (France). The dispute concerns European Patent EP 3 156 843 B1, which was applied for on October 11, 2016, claiming priority from French application FR 1502170 dated October 14, 2015. The patent was published on April 19, 2017, and the mention of grant was published on April 18, 2018. No opposition was filed at the European Patent Office. The patent is in force in Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, and the Netherlands. The German part of the patent was the subject of a nullity action filed by the first defendant, while the plaintiff carved out Germany from its infringement claims for procedural reasons.
The matter combines an infringement action with a counterclaim for revocation. The central legal question, as captured in the headnote, concerns the territorial scope of remedies under Article 34 of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court (UPCA). Specifically, the court addressed whether a finding of infringement in one Contracting Member State suffices to support an order extending to all other Contracting Member States where the patent is in force, even when the patent proprietor does not pursue infringement claims in one such state due to procedural considerations (a 'carve out').
& Analysis: The Local Chamber Düsseldorf, presided over by Presiding Judge Thomas, with legally qualified Judge Dr. Schumacher as rapporteur, legally qualified Judge Agergaard, and technically qualified Judge Dr. Wilhelm, conducted an oral hearing on March 12, 2026. The chamber's analysis focused on the interpretation of Article 34 UPCA in the context of cross-border injunctions. The court concluded that establishing an infringing act in a single Contracting Member State is sufficient to justify an order covering all Contracting Member States in which the patent is in force. This principle applies even where the patent proprietor carves out one member state from its infringement claims for procedural reasons, as long as an infringing act can be established in at least one other Contracting Member State.
Final Order & Ruling: The decision was announced on April 23, 2026, with the proceedings conducted in German. The ruling establishes an important precedent regarding the territorial reach of remedies under the UPCA, confirming that carve-outs for procedural reasons do not prevent the court from issuing orders covering all Contracting Member States where the patent is in force, provided that infringement is established in at least one such state.
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 QUANTIFICARE S.A.. vs Canfield Scientific GmbH a. o. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
ZTE CorporationvsSamsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et. al.
This order from the Mannheim Local Division concerns procedural requests in an infringement action relating to European patent EP 3 905 730. Samsung sought to produce a third-party licence agreement and to extend the written procedure under R. 36 RoP to respond to ZTE's newly raised arguments regarding a published rate in the FRAND counterclaim context. The court rejected the request to extend the written procedure, provisionally permitted Samsung to respond in the interim procedure, ordered production of the licence agreement subject to confidentiality protections under R. 262A RoP, and closed the written procedure.
BFexaQC AG and ParTec AGvsNVIDIA Corporation and NVIDIA GmbH
This decision of the Local Division Munich concerns an infringement action filed by BFexaQC AG and ParTec AG, with the defendant filing a counterclaim for revocation under a condition subsequent. The court addressed three key procedural and substantive issues: (1) the weight of applicant statements made during grant proceedings for claim interpretation, (2) whether basing an infringement allegation on the defendant's own description of the attacked product constitutes a claim amendment, and (3) the procedural admissibility of a conditional counterclaim for revocation.
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SAvsModerna Netherlands B.V. et. al
This is a Rule 105.5 procedural order issued by the judge-rapporteur following an interim conference in a patent infringement action and counterclaim for revocation. The claimant, GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA, asserts European Patent EP2590626 B1 against fifteen Moderna entities across multiple European jurisdictions. The interim conference was held online on 11 June 2026 to streamline and prepare the proceedings for the upcoming oral hearing, addressing topics suggested by both the Court and the parties.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. LimitedvsRenault Deutschland AG a.o.
This case concerned European patent EP 3 651 429 before the Düsseldorf Local Division. Both the claimant (Avago Technologies) and the defendants (Renault entities) withdrew their respective infringement action and counterclaim for revocation on 12 May 2026, following an out-of-court settlement. The court permitted the withdrawals and ordered a 50% reimbursement of court fees to each party, applying the amended Rule 370.9 RoP that took effect on 1 January 2026, rather than the 60% rate requested.
FUJIFILM Corporation, Tokyo, JapanvsKodak, S.A., Madrid, Spain, LANGUAGE OF THE CASE
This appeal concerned the allocation of costs in a revocation action regarding European patent EP 4 082 804 (a lithographic printing plate precursor patent). After Fujifilm surrendered the patent and requested disposal of the action under Rule 360 RoP, the Central Division Paris ordered Fujifilm to bear the costs. The Court of Appeal set aside that cost decision, holding that Kodak unnecessarily initiated the revocation proceedings because Fujifilm had not given rise to the action and had surren
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.