2026-08-18 - LD Munich - PAPST v. Roborock - UPC_CFI_492/2025

1. Es ist zulässig, eine Widerklage auf Nichtigerklärung davon abhängig zu machen, dass eine Verletzung des Patents festgestellt wird. 2. Der Übergang von einer bedingungslosen Widerklage auf Nichtigerklärung zu einer, die vom Eintritt einer verfahrensinternen Voraussetzung (d. h. einer Feststellung der Patentverletzung durch das Gericht) abhängt, bedeutet weiterhin, dass die Widerklage gemäß R 263.3 VerfO bedingungslos beschränkt ist (bleibt). 3. Wird gemäß dem Antrag der Widerklägerin keine Entscheidung über die Nichtigkeitswiderklage getroffen, hat die Widerklägerin grundsätzlich die Kosten der Nichtigkeitswiderklage zu tragen.

The Munich Local Division dismissed an infringement action and, on the defendants' own request, took no decision on their revocation counterclaim. It first dismissed the preliminary objection: it is exclusively competent under Art. 32 UPCA, and neither a declaration of no jurisdiction nor a stay under Art. 30 Brussels Ia was appropriate, because the earlier-seised national action concerns a divisional with different subject matter and the alleged acts relate to different territories, so the situation of fact and law is not the same and there is no risk of irreconcilable decisions. Construing the asserted claims under Art. 69 EPC and its Protocol, the panel read a conditional method step in the language of programming logic on an IF...THEN...(ELSE) pattern, so the claimed determination must be the direct and immediate cause of the claimed reaction; conduct triggered by any other condition falls outside the claim, and the claimant's evidence did not establish the disputed features with the necessary certainty. A late application to produce the defendants' source code was refused for want of feature-by-feature pleading of the information gap. The Court held that making the decision on a revocation counterclaim conditional on a finding of infringement is permissible and still an unconditional limitation under R. 263.3 RoP, but that the counterclaimant then bears that counterclaim's costs as unnecessary costs under Art. 69(3) UPCA, producing a 60/40 cost split against the defendants notwithstanding their win on infringement.