2026-06-16 - LD Munich - Albert Handtmann Maschinenfabrik v. VEMAG Maschinenbau - UPC_CFI_184/2025
- Aktenzeichen:
- UPC_CFI_184/2025
- Datum:
- Spruchkörper:
- Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division
- Art:
- Decision
- Parteien:
- Albert Handtmann Maschinenfabrik GmbH & Co. KG v. VEMAG Maschinenbau GmbH
Kernaussage: The Munich Local Division decided the infringement action and the revocation counterclaim together and gave a detailed reading of what a claimed 'sealing element' has to be.
2026-06-16 - LD Munich - Albert Handtmann Maschinenfabrik
v.
VEMAG Maschinenbau - UPC_CFI_184/2025
notable
The Munich Local Division decided the infringement action and the revocation counterclaim together and gave a detailed reading of what a claimed 'sealing element' has to be. It held that the element need not consist entirely of flexible material and need not be attached to the U-shaped support structure through its flexible part — it is enough that some firmer component of the element is fixed to the basket, whether by welding, a rail, a magnet, a snap or a bayonet connection. It also read the preposition 'along' as covering a partial run, so neither direct contact nor full-length extension is required. On that construction the amended claim set was novel over the alleged public prior use, whose flexible strip sits on a chute rather than on the basket, and over a rubber-sheet prior art that is not a strip at all; and the inventive-step arguments raised for the first time orally were rejected as late and, in any event, as hindsight. The attacked machines infringe literally, including the variant whose sealing element is fixed at four 28 mm tabs rather than continuously.
Nichtigkeitsgründe
Art. 138 EPCNovelty
Patent survived (this ground)Art. 54 EPC · Art. 138(1)(a) EPC
“Novelty attack on the maintained claim 1 rejected [29–30]. The alleged public prior use GLASS VSM 300 (ES10j, ES12) shows a red flexible strip that runs along all three sides of the U-shaped structure and can bear on the trolley wall, but it is attached to the sheet-metal chute rather than to the basket, so feature 1.3 is missing. ES7 (EP 0 242 820 A1) discloses rubber sheets, not strips, and therefore does not anticipate feature 1.6 on the court's reading of 'Leiste'.”
Inventive Step
Patent survived (this ground)Art. 56 EPC · Art. 138(1)(a) EPC
“Inventive-step attack on the amended claim set rejected [31–36]. The defendant's written pleading of 3 November 2025 addressed only novelty for that request, so the arguments first raised at the hearing were rejected as late; the division added that they fail in any event. ES10/ES12 is not shown to be a realistic starting point — its upward-inclined lip serves to stop filling material sliding off the chute, not to keep splash water out — and nothing explains why the skilled person would enlarge the hopper, drop the chute, and then remove only the structure above the red strip. ES11 (EP 0 339 375 A1) discloses no sealing element at all, and combining it with ES10/ES12 would still not yield a sealing strip.”
Added Matter
Patent survived (this ground)Art. 123(2) EPC · Art. 138(1)(c) EPC
“The amended claim set is admissible [28]. Claim 1 corresponds to granted claim 5 in its dependency on claim 1 and traces to original claim 1 with dependent claims 2 and 5 and the disclosure passage; the remaining claims match the original claims. No extension of the scope of protection.”
Inoffiziell
Inoffizielle KI-Übersetzung
Dies ist eine automatische, von KI erstellte Übersetzung, die Fehler enthalten kann. Rechtsverbindlich ist allein das Originaldokument in der Verfahrenssprache (German).