2025-05-02 - LD Düsseldorf - Evac v. Shanghai VacDrain Vacuum Drainage Equipment et al. - UPC_CFI_811/2024

Aktenzeichen:
UPC_CFI_811/2024
Datum:
Spruchkörper:
Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division
Art:
Decision
Parteien:
Evac Oy v. Shanghai VacDrain Vacuum Drainage Equipment Co., Ltd., VD Solutions GmbH, REDACTED PARTY, S.K. Marine Supplies GmbH, REDACTED PARTY, REDACTED PARTY

Kernaussage: The Düsseldorf Local Division confirmed under Rule 365.

2025-05-02 - LD Düsseldorf - Evac v. Shanghai VacDrain Vacuum Drainage Equipment et al. - UPC_CFI_811/2024
🗂️Nur Fallakte
🏛️Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division• Decision
📅2025-05-02
🔢UPC_CFI_811/2024
Parteien & Vertreter
Kläger / Berufungsführer
Evac Oy
Cordula Julia SCHUMACHER
Beklagter / Berufungsbeklagter
Shanghai VacDrain Vacuum Drainage Equipment Co., Ltd.
VD Solutions GmbH
Name not displayed for GDPR reasons. Represented by Matthias RINGER
S.K. Marine Supplies GmbH
Name not displayed for GDPR reasons. Represented by Christoph BARTELS
Name not displayed for GDPR reasons
Matthias RINGER
Christoph BARTELS
⚖️Infringement
🌐German
🤖🇬🇧

notable
The Düsseldorf Local Division confirmed under Rule 365.1 sentence 2 RoP a settlement between Evac Oy and three of the six defendants in an action on EP 1 840 282 B1 and EP 1 813 734 B1, and reproduced the settlement contract in full. The value of the decision lies in that text, which is unusual in being published unredacted. Its structure is an exit built in four linked steps: the settling defendants acknowledge the claims asserted against them; two of them give a factual assurance that they never dealt in the accused embodiments apart from one named delivery; the claimant then waives further enforcement of the acknowledged claims for past infringement — information, recall, removal from the channels of commerce, destruction and damages — but only under a resolutive condition that the assurance is correct; and should the assurance prove false, those defendants waive the limitation defence in full against any claim not yet time-barred at signature. The claimant bears the court fees for the action against them, each side bears its own costs and no cost-determination applications will be made. The Court confirmed the agreement, entered the decision in the register, continued the action against the remaining three defendants and held that no costs decision was necessary because the parties had agreed on costs.

Inoffiziell

Entscheidung teilen

Weitere Navigation
Entscheidungen
Rechtstexte
Analysen

Zu Sammlung hinzufügen

0 Einträge hinzufügen zu:

Anmeldung

Registrieren