ARTICLE
29 December 2025

LD Duesseldorf, December 10, 2025, Decision, UPC_CFI_316/2024 And UPC_CFI 547/2024

BP
Bardehle Pagenberg

Contributor

BARDEHLE PAGENBERG combines the expertise of attorneys-at-law and patent attorneys. As one of the largest IP firms in Europe, BARDEHLE PAGENBERG advises in all fields of Intellectual Property, including all procedures before the patent and trademark offices as well as litigation before the courts through all instances.
Orders for recall, removal from the channels of commerce and destruction are generally not considered in cases where products are only challenged on the grounds of indirect patent infringement.
Germany Intellectual Property

1. Key takeaways

Recall, removal and destruction generally not applicable in cases of indirect infringement

Orders for recall, removal from the channels of commerce and destruction are generally not considered in cases where products are only challenged on the grounds of indirect patent infringement. (Headnote 1)

Claimant must provide sufficient facts to justify award of fixed-rate damages

Although R. 119 RoP permits the interim award of damages at a fixed rate, there must be sufficient facts to justify the award. Against this background, the claimant's submission must demonstrate that its claim is based on a plausible estimate of specific facts. (Headnote 2)

Inventive-step attacks must be substantiated

If the claimant in a revocation action bases its claim on a lack of inventive step, it is not sufficient to merely name the documents on which he bases his attack. Instead, the claimant must explain the content of the relevant documents and specifically detail why and how a person skilled in the art would combine the individual documents to arrive at the claimed solution without exercising inventive activity. (Headnote 3)

Requesting proof for previously requested information is a change of claim

If initially information is requested pursuant to Art. 25, 67 UPCA, but only later on proof for such information, this represents a change of claim pursuant to R. 263.1 RoP.

2. Division

Local Division Duesseldorf

3. UPC number

UPC_CFI_316/2024 and UPC_CFI 547/2024

4. Type of proceedings

Infringement proceedings, counterclaim for revocation, application to amend

5. Parties

Claimant (Counterclaim Defendant): M-A-S Maschinen- und Anlagenbau Schulz GmbH and Katharina Schulz thereof

Defendant (Counterclaimant): Altech Makina Sanayi ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi

6. Patent(s)

EP 2 061 575

7. Body of legislation / Rules

R. 119, 263.1 RoP, Art 25, 26, 29, 47, 63, 64, 67, 68 UPCA

self

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

[View Source]

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More