Rematec GmbH & Co KG v. Europe Forestry B.V.

This appeal concerns European Patent EP 2 548 648 and involves proceedings between Rematec GmbH & Co KG, based in Dietersburg, Germany (the appellant, plaintiff in the infringement action, and counter-defendant in the nullity proceedings before the court of first instance), and Europe Forestry B.V., based in Stegeren, The Netherlands (the respondent, defendant in the infringement action, and counterclaimant in the nullity proceedings before the court of first instance). The case was registered under appeal file numbers UPC_CoA_302/2025 and UPC_CoA_305/2025. The decision was issued by the Court of Appeal on 17 February 2026.

The dispute centers on combined infringement and nullity proceedings regarding EP 2 548 648. The court of first instance had ruled on a nullity counterclaim brought by Europe Forestry B.V., finding the patent invalid. Rematec GmbH appealed this decision. Several procedural and substantive legal questions arose on appeal, including: (1) whether dependent patent claims need to be examined for sufficiency of disclosure under Article 138(1)(b) EPC when the independent claim on which they depend has already been upheld; (2) whether the Court of Appeal should issue a final decision on both the nullity counterclaim and the infringement action, or remand to the court of first instance; and (3) the requirements for ordering publication of decisions under Article 80 EPGÜ.

& Analysis:

The Court of Appeal established several important principles. First, regarding dependent claims, the court held that there is no need to decide on the sufficiency of disclosure of dependent patent claims (Article 138(1)(b) EPC) when the nullity counterclaim against the independent claim on which they directly or indirectly depend has already been unsuccessful, because the independent claim's scope already encompasses the dependent claims, and the nullity claimant lacks legal interest in such a determination.

Second, regarding the scope of appellate review, the court interpreted Article 75(1) EPGÜ as generally requiring the Court of Appeal to issue a final (end) decision when it reverses the first instance decision. This means that after finding the appeal of the plaintiff/counter-defendant against the first instance judgment in the nullity counterclaim proceedings to be well-founded, the Court of Appeal must regularly render a final decision not only on the nullity counterclaim but also on the infringement action.

Third, regarding remand, the court held that under Article 75(2) EPGÜ, remand to the court of first instance is only possible in exceptional cases and in accordance with the Rules of Procedure. Rule 242.2(b) RoP provides that the fact that the court of first instance did not decide on a question that the Court of Appeal must decide does not, as a rule, constitute an exceptional case justifying remand. Consequently, the circumstance that the court of first instance did not need to decide on infringement of the patent in dispute because it had declared the patent invalid in the context of a nullity counterclaim does not, as a rule, give the Court of Appeal reason to remand the nullity counterclaim and the infringement action, or even just the infringement action, to the court of first instance.

Fourth, regarding publication orders under Article 80 EPGÜ, the court held that such an order requires, in addition to a finding of patent infringement, a finding of the plaintiff's legitimate interest in the requested publication of the decision at the defendant's expense. In this regard, all circumstances of the individual case must be considered, such as the extent and severity of the infringement, the public presentation of the conflict, the public's interest in information, and whether publication of the decision can contribute to eliminating misconceptions in the market caused by the infringement or to deterring future infringements.

Final Order & Ruling:

The decision was issued by the Court of Appeal on 17 February 2026, addressing the procedural framework for combined infringement and nullity proceedings on appeal. The headnotes establish binding principles regarding the examination of dependent claims, the obligation to render final decisions on appeal, the limited circumstances for remand, and the requirements for publication orders. The full text of the decision was cut off in the provided document, but the established legal principles provide important guidance for future proceedings involving similar procedural questions.