ARTICLE
16 April 2025

LD Düsseldorf, April 10, 2025, Decision On Infringement, UPC_CFI_50/2024

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.
Product-by-process claims should be interpreted based on the technical features imparted to the product by the process, not the process itself...
Germany Intellectual Property

1. Key takeaways

Claim Interpretation of Product-by-Process Claims

Product-by-process claims should be interpreted based on the technical features imparted to the product by the process, not the process itself (Art. 69 EPC, Protocol on the Interpretation of Art. 69 EPC).

The court held that the key feature in this case was the ability to create a structural part with a flexible form language, achieved by using a self-expanding foam resin molded in a mold ("Gussteil in einer Gussform", feature 2; "selbstaufquellendes Schaumharz", feature 3.).

In this specific case, the court found that the claimed process involved using a self-expanding foam resin molded in a mold that replicates the three-dimensional outer shape of the structural part. This process imparted the technical feature of flexibility in form ("Formensprache", mn. 130), which was not achievable with prior art methods that used linear extrusion processes (see mn. 127 to 130). The court concluded that this technical feature was central to the inventive nature of the product and justified the protection conferred by the product-by-process claim.

Jurisdiction also for Claims based on Infringing Actions before June 1, 2023

In line with the order of the Local Division Munich issued on 10 February 2025 (UPC_CFI_342/2024, Phoenix Contact v. Industria Lombarda Materiale Electrico) the court confirmed its jurisdiction also for claims based on infringing actions before the UPCA came into effect (Art. 32(1)(f) UPCA).

Compensation for Pre-Grant Use subject to National Law

For compensation related to pre-grant use, the court must apply Art. 67 EPC with Art. 24(1)(c) UPCA. Thus, the claimant must prove the requirements for compensation under each national law of the relevant Contracting Member State. Here, compensation was only awarded for Germany, as Claimants only provided evidence under German law.

No Prior Use Right

The Court held that Defendant's evidence did not meet the requirements for establishing a prior use right. re. a prior useright according to Art. 28 UPCA to be assessed in this case under German law

  1. No ownership of invention: The court already denied ownership of invention. as the structural parts used by the defendant were not the same as the claimed invention. The parts in question were identified as "Füllelemente" (filling elements) rather than structural parts forming a part of the vehicle's frame. The court emphasized that the claimed invention was a frame for a vehicle with structural parts that form a load-bearing part of the frame, which was not demonstrated by the defendant's evidence.
  2. Insufficient acts of use: Moreover, the court held that the defendant had not taken sufficient steps to use the claimed invention commercially as defendant did not show a firm and final decision to use the invention or preparatory actions to implement such a decision.

2. Division

Local Division Dusseldorf

3. UPC number

UPC_CFI_50/2024

4. Type of proceedings

Infringement action and counterclaim for revocation

5. Parties

Claimants:

  • Yellow Sphere Innovations GmbH (Claimant 1) in infringement action)
  • Erwin Härtwich (Claimant 2) in infringement action)

Defendant: Knaus Tabbert AG (Defendant in infringement action, Counterclaimant in invalidity action)

Third Party Counterclaim Defendant: Alexander Christ (Counterclaim Defendant and joined proprietor with Claimant 2))

6. Patent

EP 3 356 109 B1

7. Jurisdictions

UPC, particularly Germany, France, Italy, Slovenia

8. Body of legislation / Rules

Rule 5 RoP

Art. 24(1)(c) UPCA

Art. 32(1)(f) UPCA

Art. 67 EPC

Art. 69 EPC

Protocol on the Interpretation of Art. 69 EPC

Art. 63(1) UPCA

Art. 68(1) UPCA

Art. 64(2)(b) and (4) UPCA

Art. 64(2)(e) and (4) UPCA

Rule 191 sentence 1 alternative 2 RoP

UPC_CFI_50-2024_LD_Dusseldorf_2025-04-10_product-by-process-claim Download

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.

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