2025-01-16 - LD Vienna - Swarco Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme v. STRABAG Infrastructure & Safety Solutions - UPC_CFI_33/2024
- Aktenzeichen:
- UPC_CFI_33/2024
- Datum:
- Spruchkörper:
- Court of First Instance - Vienna (AT) Local Division
- Art:
- Order
- Parteien:
- SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme Ges.m.b.H. v. STRABAG Infrastructure & Safety Solutions GmbH
Kernaussage: The Vienna Local Division found a supplier of LED variable message signs liable for infringing a colour-mixing collecting optic, and produced four headnotes on procedure and remedies.
2025-01-16 - LD Vienna - Swarco Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme
v.
STRABAG Infrastructure & Safety Solutions - UPC_CFI_33/2024
notable
The Vienna Local Division found a supplier of LED variable message signs liable for infringing a colour-mixing collecting optic, and produced four headnotes on procedure and remedies. A defendant that asserts invalidity must bring a revocation counterclaim under R. 25 with R. 42 RoP; failing that, the objection — here added matter — is not examined at all. On the merits the division read 'collecting lens' as covering aspherical lenses, read 'region of the focus' as deliberately imprecise because real lenses have aberrations, and defined the light exit of the light guide functionally, at the point where total reflection ends, so that a virtual exit inside a one-piece moulding still counts. Definitive removal from the channels of commerce is a measure separate from recall and presupposes that the infringer has the factual and legal means to carry it out. Publication under Art. 80 UPCA is discretionary and needs a pleaded prevention interest, which the claimant did not supply. An intervener is treated as a party for costs under the principle of R. 315.4 RoP: it bears its own costs when the side it supports loses, and may share the winner's costs in proportion to the extra work it caused.
Nichtigkeitsgründe
Art. 138 EPCAdded Matter
Not decidedArt. 123(2) EPC · Art. 138(1)(c) EPC
“The defendant and the intervener asserted that the patent extends beyond the original disclosure — 'Mantelflächen' for 'allen Oberflächen', and the dropping of 'glatt' from 'optisch hochglanzpoliert' — and said they had refrained from a revocation counterclaim for reasons of procedural economy. The division did not examine the objection at all, because R. 25 RoP requires the statement of defence to contain a revocation counterclaim in accordance with R. 42 RoP wherever invalidity is asserted [B].”
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).