2025-04-10 - LD Düsseldorf - Yellow Sphere Innovations et al. v. Knaus Tabbert - UPC_CFI_50/2024
- Aktenzeichen:
- UPC_CFI_50/2024
- Datum:
- Spruchkörper:
- Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division
- Art:
- Proceeding Decision
- Parteien:
- REDACTED PARTY, Yellow Sphere Innovations GmbH v. Knaus Tabbert AG
Kernaussage: The Düsseldorf Local Division found infringement of a vehicle-frame patent construed as a product-by-process claim, holding that what matters is the technical properties the manufacturing process imparts to the product, not the process itself.
2025-04-10 - LD Düsseldorf - Yellow Sphere Innovations et al.
v.
Knaus Tabbert - UPC_CFI_50/2024
notable
The Düsseldorf Local Division found infringement of a vehicle-frame patent construed as a product-by-process claim, holding that what matters is the technical properties the manufacturing process imparts to the product, not the process itself. It dismissed a revocation counterclaim on insufficiency, novelty and inventive step, and rejected a private prior-use defence for want of a firm pre-priority commitment to the claimed concept. Beyond the standard Art. 63/64/67/68 UPCA remedies, the decision holds that the UPC also has jurisdiction under Art. 32(1)(f) UPCA over a claim for national-law compensation for use of a published-but-not-yet-granted EP application, applying Art. 67 EPC via Art. 24(1)(c) UPCA in the absence of any UPCA/EPC rule on the point; the claimant must plead the national-law basis state by state, and here only did so for Germany. The court also refused a defence limitation objection, a request for enforcement security, and a request to refer six questions to the CJEU.
Nichtigkeitsgründe
Art. 138 EPCNovelty
Patent survived (this ground)Art. 54 EPC · Art. 138(1)(a) EPC
“None of the eight prior-art documents anticipates a vehicle frame with load-bearing foam structural parts [135]-[165].”
Inventive Step
Patent survived (this ground)Art. 56 EPC · Art. 138(1)(a) EPC
“Applying the Sanofi/Amgen problem-solution framework, none of three starting points renders obvious a frame concept with load-bearing foam structural parts [166]-[190].”
Insufficiency of Disclosure
Patent survived (this ground)Art. 83 EPC · Art. 138(1)(b) EPC
“The defendant's objection concerns clarity (which parts of the frame are load-bearing), not enablement, and clarity is not a validity ground under Art. 138 EPC [133]-[134].”
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).