2025-05-08 - LD Düsseldorf - Grundfos Holding v. Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump - UPC_CFI_11/2024
- Aktenzeichen:
- UPC_CFI_11/2024
- Datum:
- Spruchkörper:
- Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division
- Art:
- Proceeding Decision
- Parteien:
- Grundfos Holding A/S v. Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd.
Kernaussage: The Düsseldorf Local Division held a heating-circulation-pump patent valid and infringed and gave two headnotes on how far a revocation counterclaim may still grow after it is filed.
2025-05-08 - LD Düsseldorf - Grundfos Holding
v.
Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump - UPC_CFI_11/2024
notable
The Düsseldorf Local Division held a heating-circulation-pump patent valid and infringed and gave two headnotes on how far a revocation counterclaim may still grow after it is filed. Prior art produced for the first time with the reply to the counterclaim is an extension of the counterclaim within the meaning of R. 263 RoP, and so is a fresh novelty or inventive-step attack built on prior art that was already on file; in both cases the defendant must show both that the material could not have been filed with the counterclaim and that admitting it would not unfairly hamper the claimant. On the merits the division read the disputed switching feature as a purpose feature: the means must be capable of switching over or of connecting an external speed control, not of both, and the claim gives the means no discretion over whether to switch. The division also held that lack of clarity is not a ground of revocation, that a recall order under Art. 64(2)(b) UPCA obliges nothing more than a recall letter to commercial buyers, and that a defendant seeking enforcement security under Art. 82(2) UPCA must plead the same kind of facts as under R. 158 RoP.
Nichtigkeitsgründe
Art. 138 EPCNovelty
Patent survived (this ground)Art. 54 EPC · Art. 138(1)(a) EPC
“The novelty ground failed. DE 101 39 510 A1 (D 5) discloses neither a centrifugal pump nor an electronic speed controller, and Regulation (EU) 622/2012 defines 'circulator' as a centrifugal pump only for its own purposes, so the combination does not directly and unambiguously disclose one [95]-[96]. The Grundfos UPM2 data booklet (D 6) is controlled solely by the external PWM signal and therefore lacks the internal electronic regulation and the switching means [98]-[101]. The further documents D 15 to D 19 were not admitted [104]-[107].”
Inventive Step
Patent survived (this ground)Art. 56 EPC · Art. 138(1)(a) EPC
“The inventive-step ground failed on every combination pleaded in the counterclaim. Applying the Munich CD framework in Sanofi v Amgen and the Court of Appeal in NanoString v 10x Genomics, the division found no motivation to combine: D 6's control and D 5's control circuit are incompatible [122]; D 1's core is a pre-set internal control adjustable only by a technician, which an external speed control would break [125]-[128]; D 8 keeps master and slave pumps permanently connected so nothing switches over [131]-[133]; and D 2's twin pump has its regulators in constant data exchange with the superordinate control [138]-[140].”
Insufficiency of Disclosure
Patent survived (this ground)Art. 83 EPC · Art. 138(1)(b) EPC
“The Art. 83 EPC ground failed. The defendant's complaint that the skilled person cannot tell whether one component or several are required goes to clarity, and lack of clarity is not a ground of revocation under Art. 138 EPC [86]. Sub-claim 4 and para. [0027] of the description name a sensor or microswitch in the plug as a worked way of detecting the connection, which is enough [87].”
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).