2025-08-22 - LD Munich - Brita Se v. AQUASHIELD EUROPE s.r.o. et al. - UPC_CFI_248/2024

Was ist diese UPC-Entscheidung?

Zusammenfassung: The Munich Local Division (Panel 2) decided an infringement action and the revocation counterclaim together and produced ten headnotes on claim construction, exhaustion and the remedies available for indirect infringement. On construction it held that a purpose statement in an apparatus claim defines only the suitability of the claimed device, so novelty under Art. 54 EPC turns on whether the prior art discloses all spatial-physical features of that device, irrespective of the disclosed purpose; on that reading granted claims 1 and 4 were anticipated and the patent survives only in the form of auxiliary request 16. The Court developed an autonomous UPC standard for exhaustion under Art. 29 UPCA, distinguishing permissible repair from impermissible re-making by whether the replacement preserves the identity of the product put on the market, and rejected the defence because the proprietor's own cartridge does not practise the amended claim. For indirect infringement under Art. 26 UPCA it held that a means capable of non-infringing use justifies only a limited injunction secured by warning notices, refused a contractual-penalty undertaking as economically equivalent to an unqualified ban, and held that Art. 64 UPCA does not apply to indirect infringement at all, so no positive declaration of infringement and no recall or destruction may be ordered. Information and accounting under Art. 67 and Art. 68(3)(a),(b) UPCA with R. 191 RoP were granted with an auditor reservation and document production, together with a declaration of liability in damages.

Quelle und Fundstellen

Quelle: UPC Case File

Aktenzeichen: UPC_CFI_248/2024