Key takeaways
Jurisdiction does not depend on whether the UPCA governs the merits
✓
- Knaus Tabbert argued the UPC had no power to decide on acts before 1 June 2023. It pointed to an old opt-out that had been withdrawn, and to caravan sales that spanned both sides of that date. The Court disagreed.
- The Court must be able to check its own jurisdiction first, without looking at the merits of the case. Jurisdiction and applicable law are two separate questions.
- Defendants cannot escape the UPC by arguing that older national law governs their conduct. That argument may lower damages, but it will not get a case dismissed.
UPCA remedies do not apply retroactively to conduct that already ended before 1 June 2023
✓
- Knaus Tabbert kept offering and selling its “DESEO” and “AZUR” caravans both before and after that date. It never stopped.
- Because the infringement never stopped, the Court could still issue an injunction and order recalls under the UPCA. Ongoing conduct is never “finished” business under the old rules.
- Damages work differently. Each past sale is its own separate act. So for sales before 1 June 2023, national law decides the damages, not the UPCA.
- Take note: this rule mainly helps in cases of continuous, ongoing infringement. If a company had fully stopped all infringing acts before June 2023, national law alone would apply.
A product-by-process claim protects the product, not the process
✓
- The patent claim described a part made “in a casting mold.” Knaus Tabbert actually used two molds instead of one.
- The Court looked at the end result, not the method. What matters is whether the product has the claimed properties, not whether the maker followed the exact process.
- Since the two-mold version still produced a part shaped by the foam core, it still infringed.
- Lesson for engineers and IP teams: changing your manufacturing process will not help you avoid a product claim unless it actually changes the product itself.
Broad language in old patents does not automatically cover every specific idea a company later comes up with
✓
- One prior art document described a general “structural component.” It never actually described a separate frame for a vehicle.
- The Court said a reader only counts something as “disclosed” if a skilled person would immediately and obviously read it that way. General wording is not enough.
- This helps patent owners defend against broad, vague prior art. But it also means companies challenging a patent need very specific, matching evidence — not just similar-sounding language.
Parties must prove foreign law with real evidence, not just by quoting a statute
✓
- Knaus Tabbert quoted an Italian law provision and claimed it excluded certain damages. It gave no proof of how Italian courts actually apply that law.
- The Court said this was not enough. You need case law or expert evidence, not just the text of a law.
- There is also a built-in assumption: since all EU states implemented the same enforcement rules, national law is presumed to match the UPCA standard unless proven otherwise.
- Practical point: if your legal strategy relies on a foreign law being stricter than the UPCA, budget for expert evidence — a bare citation will not convince the Court.
A failed settlement offer can come back to bite you
✓
- After the hearing, the parties tried to settle. Talks failed. But Knaus Tabbert’s own settlement offer, combined with its sales figures, became the basis for a EUR 100,000 provisional damages award.
- The logic: a settlement offer usually reflects some compromise, so it hints at the minimum price the offering party was willing to pay.
- Strategic warning: think carefully before making an unconditional settlement offer. If talks break down, that number may resurface as evidence against you.
Division
Court of Appeal
UPC number
CoA_365/2025 and CoA_367/2025
Type of proceedings
Appeal of a main infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation
Parties
Appellant/Defendant in the infringement action and Claimant in the revocation counterclaim: Knaus Tabbert AG
Respondents/Claimants in the infringement action and Defendants in the revocation counterclaim: Yellow Sphere Innovations GmbH, Erwin Härtwich
Respondent/Third-party defendant to the counterclaim: Alexander Christ
Patent(s)
EP 3 356 109
Jurisdictions
Germany, France, Italy, Slovenia
Body of legislation / Rules
Art. 24 UPCA, Art. 28 VCLT, Art. 32 UPCA, Art. 54 UPCA, Art. 63 UPCA, Art. 64 UPCA, Art. 67 UPCA, Art. 68 UPCA, Art. 72 UPCA, Art. 82 UPCA, Art. 138 EPC, Art. 8 Rome II Regulation, R. 119 RoP, R. 175.1 RoP, R. 222 RoP, R. 226 RoP, R. 266 RoP, R. 352.1 RoP
