2026-02-11 - LD Munich - Philips v. Belkin et al. - UPC_CFI_171/2025
- Aktenzeichen:
- UPC_CFI_171/2025
- Datum:
- Spruchkörper:
- Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division
- Art:
- Decision
- Parteien:
- Koninklijke Philips N.V., v. Belkin International Inc., REDACTED PARTY, Belkin Limited
Kernaussage: The Munich Local Division decided a second infringement action between the same parties on the same patent and set out when res judicata bars one.
2026-02-11 - LD Munich - Philips
v.
Belkin et al. - UPC_CFI_171/2025
landmark
The Munich Local Division decided a second infringement action between the same parties on the same patent and set out when res judicata bars one. The subject-matter of a patent infringement action is determined essentially by the actual form of the contested embodiment measured against the features of the asserted claim, so identity of cause of action is overcome where new facts change that core; a first action about earlier Qi versions therefore does not bar a second about the Magnetic Power Profile of Qi2. On capacity to be sued it held that where CE marking is mandatory for sale in the European Union, the company issuing the EU declaration of conformity and the company acting as Authorized EU Representative are liable at least as accessories, because without them the products would not be marketable in the member states, and because within a group that has been litigating the same allegation for years their support is deliberate and targeted participation rather than the act of a third party. The panel maintained that view against a later Court of Appeal order which, agreeing with the Hamburg Local Division, held that an authorized representative does not perform infringing acts and is not an 'infringer' within Art. 62 UPCA. On FRAND it held that an implementer already negotiating a pool licence covering the standard cannot rely on a missing notification of infringement.