2025-04-10 - LD Düsseldorf - Knaus Tabbert v. Yellow Sphere Innovations et al. - CC_30134/2024
- Aktenzeichen:
- CC_30134/2024
- Datum:
- Spruchkörper:
- Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division
- Art:
- Decision
- Parteien:
- Knaus Tabbert AG v. REDACTED PARTY, Yellow Sphere Innovations GmbH
Kernaussage: The Düsseldorf Local Division found that Knaus Tabbert's caravans built with its Fibre Frame technology infringe a patent for a vehicle frame with load-bearing structural parts of self-expanding foam resin, and dismissed the counterclaim for revocation.
2025-04-10 - LD Düsseldorf - Knaus Tabbert
v.
Yellow Sphere Innovations et al. - CC_30134/2024
notable
The Düsseldorf Local Division found that Knaus Tabbert's caravans built with its Fibre Frame technology infringe a patent for a vehicle frame with load-bearing structural parts of self-expanding foam resin, and dismissed the counterclaim for revocation. Claim 1 was construed as a product-by-process claim: the process feature (cast in a mould reproducing the part's 3D outer shape) defines the product only through the properties it imparts, so using two moulds or applying the protective layer in a separate step does not avoid infringement. The Court held the UPC competent for the whole period claimed, including acts before 1 June 2023 and during a withdrawn opt-out, applied the UPCA to acts continued after entry into force (following Hurom v NUC), rejected a prior-use right because Art. 28 UPCA refers to national law and possession of the invention was not shown, and rejected a licence defence based on a development agreement limited to another model. It ordered the full catalogue of remedies including EUR 100,000 interim damages, held that compensation for use of the published application falls within Art. 32(1)(f) UPCA but must be pleaded country by country under Art. 67 EPC and national law (granted for Germany only), and refused a CJEU referral and enforcement security.
Nichtigkeitsgründe
Art. 138 EPCNovelty
Patent survived (this ground)Art. 54 EPC · Art. 138(1)(a) EPC
“None of the eight cited documents and prior uses discloses a vehicle frame whose structural parts form a load-bearing part of the frame (features 1 and 5), and DE '369 also lacks the protective coating [135]-[165].”
Inventive Step
Patent survived (this ground)Art. 56 EPC · Art. 138(1)(a) EPC
“Applying the CD Munich (Sanofi v Amgen) framework, none of the three attacks from DE '933, EP '189 or DE '364 showed a motivation to reach the load-bearing coated foam-resin frame part; generic references to routine coating were insufficient [166]-[190].”
Insufficiency of Disclosure
Patent survived (this ground)Art. 83 EPC · Art. 138(1)(b) EPC
“The objection that it is unclear which parts of the frame are load-bearing concerns clarity, not sufficiency, and clarity is not a revocation ground [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).