2026-06-22 - LD Düsseldorf - Evac v. Shanghai VacDrain Vacuum Drainage Equipment et al. - UPC_CFI_811/2024

GERMAN: Nach Art. 72 EPGÜ können ungeschadet von Art. 24 Abs. 2 und 3 EPGÜ Klagen im Zusammenhang mit allen Formen der finanziellen Entschädigung nicht später als fünf Jahre, nachdem der Antragsteller von dem letzten Ereignis, das Veranlassung zur Klage bietet, Kenntnis erlangte oder vernünftigerweise hätte erlangen müssen, erhoben werden. Von dieser Verjährungsfrist nicht erfasst ist die Unterlassung. Da der Unterlassungsausspruch in die Zukunft gerichtet ist, unterliegt eine Unterlassungsanordnung nicht der Verjährung ENGLISH: According to Article 72 UPCA, without prejudice to Article 24(2) and (3) UPCA, actions relating to all forms of financial compensation may not be brought more than five years after the date on which the applicant became aware, or had reasonable grounds to become aware, of the last fact justifying the action. This limitation period does not apply for injunctions. As an injunction is directed towards the future, it is not subject to the limitation period.

The Düsseldorf Local Division decided a two-patent infringement action and used it to settle the reach of the Art. 72 UPCA limitation period: it covers all forms of financial compensation and the information claim that prepares them, but not an injunction, which is directed at the future and therefore never time-barred. It found direct literal infringement of the discharge-valve patent and indirect infringement of the vacuum-buffer patent, held the majority shareholder and director personally liable under the Court of Appeal's Belkin v Philips test because he personally signed the purchase invoices and was active in the operative distribution business, and refused liability for a newly founded German group company on de facto business succession and first-infringement risk. It rejected the exhaustion defence: replacing the vacuum buffer is a new making rather than ordinary maintenance, because the technical effects of the invention are reflected exclusively in the replaced part even though it is a wear part. It also held that recall, definitive removal and destruction are not available against products that are only the means of an indirect infringement, while the Art. 67 UPCA account is, and it left open whether the German forfeiture defence has any place before the UPC at all.