2026-10-22 - LD Munich - FAST IP v. Skechers Usa - UPC_CFI_743/2025
- Aktenzeichen:
- UPC_CFI_743/2025
- Datum:
- Spruchkörper:
- Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division
- Art:
- Decision
- Parteien:
- FAST IP, LLC v. Skechers USA Deutschland GmbH, Skechers S.à.r.l., Skechers U.S.A., Inc., Skechers EDC SPRL, Skechers USA Italia Srl, Skechers USA France SAS
Kernaussage: The Munich Local Division decided an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation on a unitary patent for a rapid-entry shoe.
2026-10-22 - LD Munich - FAST IP
v.
Skechers Usa - UPC_CFI_743/2025
notable
The Munich Local Division decided an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation on a unitary patent for a rapid-entry shoe. On claim construction it held that the binding nature of the claim under Art. 69(1) EPC bars reading an unwritten limiting feature into the claim where description and drawings give no clear indication of it, and that the Court is not bound by the parties' constructions because construction is a matter of law. Claim 1 as granted was anticipated, but the patent was maintained as limited by an auxiliary request: the added-matter and sufficiency attacks failed, and the inventive-step attacks failed because the counterclaimants did not plead a pointer or motivation from any starting point, which in light of Arts. 42, 54 and 76(2) UPCA the Court will not supply itself. Only one of four accused models infringed; for the others the functional feature was not shown under the practical forces of foot entry. The Court ordered injunction, information with supporting invoices, corrective measures and damages liability, made the corrective measures enforceable only against a EUR 5m security because of the limitation, the pending EPO opposition and the mixed infringement result, refused provisional damages and publication, and ordered each party to bear its own costs.
Nichtigkeitsgründe
Art. 138 EPCNovelty
Partially invalid (this ground)Art. 54 EPC · Art. 138(1)(a) EPC
“Claim 1 as granted was held anticipated by ZAGO (WO 2012/168956), which discloses all features including the forward flexing (1.6) and the anti-collapse stabilizer (1.7); schematic drawings are not read as true to scale (Reasons V.3, pp. 27-30). The novelty attacks on auxiliary request 6 based on LIN and TAKAHASHI failed (Reasons V.4.c, pp. 33-36).”
Inventive Step
Patent survived (this ground)Art. 56 EPC · Art. 138(1)(a) EPC
“Inventive step attacks on auxiliary request 6 from LIN, TAKAHASHI and HORIZON alone and in combination failed: the additional features were not disclosed, HORIZON's concept taught away from extending the stabilizer to the topline, and the counterclaimants pleaded no pointer or motivation for the combinations (Reasons V.4.d, pp. 36-42). Dependent claims not examined separately because claim 1 is inventive (V.5).”
Added Matter
Patent survived (this ground)Art. 123(2) EPC · Art. 138(1)(c) EPC
“The combinations of features 1.7/1.4.1 and 1.7/1.8 were held disclosed: the skilled person reads paras. [0047]-[0050] of the application in context as building-block design options, embodiments may be combined per para. [0026], and FIG. 6E shows the features together (Reasons V.1, pp. 24-26). Added-matter attacks on auxiliary request 6 and on dependent claims 3-8 also failed (V.4.b, V.5).”
Insufficiency of Disclosure
Patent survived (this ground)Art. 83 EPC · Art. 138(1)(b) EPC
“The absence of any example or definition of a 'rigid material' did not render the patent insufficient: choosing a material rigid enough for the function is routine and common general knowledge, following UPC_CoA_908/2025 Hartmann v Omni-Pac (Reasons V.2, pp. 26-27; dependent claims V.5).”