- within Privacy and Transport topic(s)
1. Key takeaways
Provisional measures dismissed where the applicant fails to establish infringement on the balance of probabilities
The Court applied the “more likely than not” test for provisional measures. Since it found that on the balance of probabilities likely the patent is not infringed, the Application was dismissed on this ground alone, without needing to address the defendant’s defences on urgency or invalidity. The burden of presentation and proof lies with the applicant.
Claim construction decisive: “in a layer by layer manner” (Art. 69 EPC) was construed to mean each horizontal layer of a 3D printing purge tower must consist of a single material
The parties’ dispute centered on the feature “printing at least one purge tower in a layer by layer manner”. The Court interpreted this to require that each purge operation creates a new horizontal layer on top of the previous one, consisting of only one type of material (either part material or support material). The Court relied on the patent description, figures, prosecution history, and common general knowledge.
The applicant’s broader interpretation — that purge tower layers could be arranged horizontally next to each other — was rejected as inconsistent with the description, drawings, and the applicant’s own statements during prosecution before the EPO.
No literal infringement was found as the defendant’s product creates a tower with multiple materials per layer
The defendant’s “prime tower” was found to have layers containing both part and support material side-by-side, falling outside the literal scope of the construed claim.
Infringement by equivalence was not argued by the applicant.
Online participation of “notulisten” (“minute takers”) for a party is not permitted, as it is similar to an unauthorized recording and distinct from transcribing an official recording
The defendant’s announced online “minute takers” were denied participation because their role resembled a recording, over which the Court had no control. This was distinguished from the CoA’s ruling in Amazon/InterDigital (UPC_CoA_12/2026), which permits private transcripts based on R. 115 RoP audio recordings for restricted use — as that concerns recordings made at court premises, not remote transcription.
The unsuccessful party bears the costs (Art. 69 UPCA), a cost order in provisional measures is directly enforceable, as R. 118.8 RoP does not apply
The court ordered the applicant to pay the agreed-upon costs of EUR 112,000, confirming the amount was directly enforceable based on Court of Appeal case law.
2. Division
Local Division The Hague
3. UPC number
UPC-CFI-305/2026
4. Type of proceedings
Application for provisional measures
5. Parties
Applicant: Stratasys, Inc.
Defendant: Bambulab GmbH
6. Patent(s)
7. Jurisdictions
France, Germany, The Netherlands
8. Body of legislation / Rules
Art. 31, 32, 62, 69, 73 UPCA
R. 115, 118, 206, 211, 220, 224 RoP
Art. 69 EPC
Art. 4 Brussels Regulation (Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012)
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]