Short Summary
In this legal proceeding before Munich (DE) Central Division - Section (decision issued on 2026-04-08) under reference UPC_95D854827E, WIRPLAST – Więcek Spółka Jawna (claimant) appeared in dispute with VILPE Oy (defendant) concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Detailed Summary
1
of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court
Central Division (Section Munich)
issued on 8 April 2026
HEADNOTE:
Even if a certain prior art document in the same technical field as the patent in suit is considered
to be a realistic starting point, it can be relevant for the assessment of inventive step that it relates
to a different kind of device and solves a different problem than the invention of the patent.
KEYWORDS:
Front-loaded procedural system. Claim interpretation. Physical and spatial configuration. Inventive
step. Objective problem. Burden of proof and substantiation. Motivation for the skilled person.
Action no: UPC 280/2025
Revocation action
Central Division (Section Munich)
2
CLAIMANT:
WIRPLAST – Więcek Spółka Jawna, ul. Stawowa 9 - 42-287 Babienica - Poland
represented by: Oskar Ginko of AOMB Polska sp. z o. o.
DEFENDANT:
VILPE Oy, Kauppatie 9 - 65610 Mustasaari - Finland
represented by: Jarkko Tiilikainen and Tatu Ahlskog of Laine IP Oy
PATENT AT ISSUE
European Patent no EP 2 649 380 B1.
PANEL/DIVISION
Panel 1 of the Central Division (Section Munich).
DECIDING JUDGES
This decision has been delivered by András Kupecz (as Presiding judge and judge-rapporteur),
Daniel Severinsson (legally qualified judge) and Merja Heikkinen-Keinänen (technically qualified
judge).
LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS:
English.
SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE PROCEEDINGS
Revocation action.
ORAL HEARING
25 February 2026.
3
OF THE FACTS
1.
On 2 April 2025, WIRPLAST – Więcek Spółka Jawna (“the Claimant”) brought a revocation
action in the Central Division (Section Munich) (“CD Munich”) of the Unified Patent Court
(“UPC”) against Vilpe Oy (“the Defendant”) in relation to European Patent EP 2 649 380 B1
(“the Patent”).
2.
The Patent is based on the PCT application PCT/FI2011/051045 published as
WO 2012/076748, which was filed on 25 November 2011. At the European Patent Office
(“EPO”) the application was handled under the application number 11847058.2. The Patent
claims priority of Finnish application FI 20106307 of 9 December 2010. The mention of the
grant of the Patent was published on 27 June 2018.
3.
The Patent is in force in the following UPC Contracting Member States: Belgium, Denmark,
Estonia, France, Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, Netherlands and Sweden.
4.
The Patent, which was granted in the English language, is entitled “Accessory for an exhaust
ventilation pipe” and has the following claims:
1. An exhaust ventilation pipe, which exhaust ventilation pipe comprises an exhaust pipe
(1) of a ventilation channel, provided with a hat (2) and extending through the roof of a
building, the upper part of the hat (2) being provided with a conical cup (3) preventing rain
water from entering the ventilation channel, characterized in that it further comprises a
circular spirit level (6) integrated on the top of the conical cup (3) in the hat (2).
2. The exhaust ventilation pipe according to claim 1, characterized in that the exhaust
ventilation pipe is a roof extractor further comprising an electric motor and a propeller of
the extractor, said electric motor and said propeller being mounted below the conical cup
(3) of the hat (2).
POINTS IN DISPUTE AND REQUESTS OF THE PARTIES
5.
The Claimant argues that the Patent is invalid on the ground that its subject-matter is not
patentable within the terms of Art. 65(1) and (2) of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court
(“UPCA”) in combination with Art. 138(1)(a) of the European Patent Convention (“EPC”),
since it is not based on an inventive step (Art. 56 EPC).
4
6.
Based thereon, the Claimant requests that:
1) the Patent is revoked in its entirety for the territory of the UPC member states
Belgium, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, Netherlands
and Sweden, and
2) the Defendant is ordered to bear the costs of the proceedings
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Munich (DE) Central Division - Section. Understanding the court's reasoning in WIRPLAST – Więcek Spółka Jawna (claimant) vs VILPE Oy (defendant) is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbHvsRespondent
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 3 466 498 B1. The plaintiff Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH sought leave under Rule 36 of the Rules of Procedure to file additional submissions after learning that the defendants were also offering the 'Barryvox S' (in addition to the previously accused 'Barryvox S2') with voice control functionality. The court denied the request, finding no basis to permit further submissions, noting that the plaintiff is already protected by confirmed provisional measures orders regarding the 'Barryvox S2' and retains remedies for any potential violations.
Aesculap AGvsShanghai Bojin Medical Instrument Co. Ltd., Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe), Shanghai Bojin Electric Instrument & Device Co., Ltd
Aesculap AG sued three Shanghai Bojin-related entities for direct and indirect infringement of European Patent EP 2 892 442 B1, which protects a surgical torque-transmitting instrument with a cutting tool. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf found that it lacked jurisdiction over the two Chinese defendants under Rule 116.3 RoP (long arm jurisdiction), but held the European-based Defendant 2 (Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe)) liable as an intermediate for offering and distributing infringing drill bits in Germany. The court issued an injunction, information/order disclosure obligations, and coercive penalties against Defendant 2, while dismissing the claims against Defendants 1 and 3 and splitting costs equally between the plaintiff and Defendant 2.
Applicant ***vsRespondent
The President of the Court of Appeal dismissed a petition for review challenging the Registrar's refusal to enter the applicant on the list of representatives before the Unified Patent Court. The applicant had submitted a CEIPI certificate dated 8 July 2022, which predated the Administrative Committee's November 2023 accreditation decision under Rule 1 of the EPLC Rules. The Court held that there is no de facto continuity between an accredited course under Rule 1 and a course referenced in Rule 12.1 of the EPLC Rules, and therefore the applicant did not possess a valid certificate at the time of filing.
Black Sheep Retail Products B.VvsHL Display AB
This appeal concerned patent EP 2 432 351, where the Local Division the Hague had found Black Sheep Retail Products B.V. infringed the patent and dismissed Black Sheep's counterclaim for revocation. Black Sheep appealed, but subsequently filed a withdrawal of the appeal proceedings under Rule 265(1) RoP, with HL Display's consent. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal and ordered a 50% reimbursement of court fees to Black Sheep under the amended Rule 370.9 RoP applicable to applications filed after 1 January 2026.
Hybridgenerator ApSvsHGSystem ApS etc.
This case concerns European Patent EP 4 238 202 B1, owned by Hybridgenerator ApS, relating to a mobile hybrid generator system for delivering electrical power. The claimant, Hybridgenerator ApS, brought proceedings against HGSystem ApS, InfoTech Concept ApS, and Rune Eilertsen (a former director of Hybridgenerator who is now associated with the defendant companies and is named as the inventor of the patent). The defendants raised a counterclaim for revocation, challenging the patent on grounds including sufficiency of disclosure, novelty, and inventive step. The headnotes establish that an invention is sufficiently disclosed only if the specification enables the skilled person to perform the invention without undue burden over the full scope of protection.
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.