CoA, May 27, 2026, Infringement Action, Counterclaim, UPC_CoA_622/2025

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.

Explore Firm Details

The appellant argued at first instance that circulation pumps are typically implemented as centrifugal pumps. On appeal, additional textbook excerpts were submitted to substantiate this point. The Court held this as concretization of already conclusive submissions. In addition, this submission was not contested by the respondent, beyond mere arguing late-filing. Uncontested submissions generally cannot be rejected as late-filed.

Germany Intellectual Property

Article Insights

Michael-Wolfgang Waschak’s articles from Bardehle Pagenberg are most popular:

within Intellectual Property topic(s)
in European Union
in European Union
in European Union
in European Union
in European Union
with readers working within the Business & Consumer Services industries

Bardehle Pagenberg are most popular:

within Technology topic(s)

1. Key takeaways

Further substantiation of already conclusive first-instance submissions is not “new” on appeal

The appellant argued at first instance that circulation pumps are typically implemented as centrifugal pumps. On appeal, additional textbook excerpts were submitted to substantiate this point. The Court held this as concretization of already conclusive submissions. In addition, this submission was not contested by the respondent, beyond mere arguing late-filing. Uncontested submissions generally cannot be rejected as late-filed.

Prior art arguments are “new” on appeal if the specific information was never argued at first instance

Even where a prior art document was already filed at first instance, appeal submissions are new if the specific information was not previously argued at first instance.

Identical terms in a claim may have different meanings if the function requires it

The divergent understanding of the term “switching” in different features results from the two features serving different functions, as confirmed by the description.

The language of proceedings is authoritative for claim construction

The Court held that the claims in the language of proceedings (German) were authoritative. The translation in the patent (English) was irrelevant where it supported a different reading.

No legal interest to examine validity of claims that are dependent on claims found patentable

Where a dependent claim is linked to a claim found patentable, the appellant lacks legal interest in examination of the validity of such dependent claim.

2. Division

CoA, LD Duesseldorf (first instance)

3. UPC number

UPC_CoA_622/2025, UPC_CoA_623/2025

4. Type of proceedings

infringement action, counterclaim for revocation

5. Parties

Claimant (infringement): Grundfos Holding A/S, Denmark

Defendant (infringement): Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd, China

6. Patents

EP 2 778 423

7. Body of legislation / Rules

Rule 222.2 RoP

Click here to read the full report.

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]