2026-06-22 - LD Düsseldorf - Evac v. Shanghai VacDrain Vacuum Drainage Equipment et al. - UPC_CFI_811/2024

Was ist diese UPC-Entscheidung?

Zusammenfassung: The Düsseldorf Local Division decided a two-patent infringement action and used it to settle the reach of the Art. 72 UPCA limitation period: it covers all forms of financial compensation and the information claim that prepares them, but not an injunction, which is directed at the future and therefore never time-barred. It found direct literal infringement of the discharge-valve patent and indirect infringement of the vacuum-buffer patent, held the majority shareholder and director personally liable under the Court of Appeal's Belkin v Philips test because he personally signed the purchase invoices and was active in the operative distribution business, and refused liability for a newly founded German group company on de facto business succession and first-infringement risk. It rejected the exhaustion defence: replacing the vacuum buffer is a new making rather than ordinary maintenance, because the technical effects of the invention are reflected exclusively in the replaced part even though it is a wear part. It also held that recall, definitive removal and destruction are not available against products that are only the means of an indirect infringement, while the Art. 67 UPCA account is, and it left open whether the German forfeiture defence has any place before the UPC at all.

Quelle und Fundstellen

Quelle: UPC Case File

Aktenzeichen: UPC_CFI_811/2024