Key takeaways
Recall, removal and destruction generally not applicable in cases of indirect infringement
Orders for recall, removal from the channels of commerce and destruction are generally not considered in cases where products are only challenged on the grounds of indirect patent infringement. (Headnote 1)
Claimant must provide sufficient facts to justify award of fixed-rate damages
Although R. 119 RoP permits the interim award of damages at a fixed rate, there must be sufficient facts to justify the award. Against this background, the claimant’s submission must demonstrate that its claim is based on a plausible estimate of specific facts. (Headnote 2)
Inventive-step attacks must be substantiated
If the claimant in a revocation action bases its claim on a lack of inventive step, it is not sufficient to merely name the documents on which he bases his attack. Instead, the claimant must explain the content of the relevant documents and specifically detail why and how a person skilled in the art would combine the individual documents to arrive at the claimed solution without exercising inventive activity. (Headnote 3)
Requesting proof for previously requested information is a change of claim
If initially information is requested pursuant to Art. 25, 67 UPCA, but only later on proof for such information, this represents a change of claim pursuant to R. 263.1 RoP.
Division
Local Division Duesseldorf
UPC number
UPC_CFI_316/2024 and UPC_CFI 547/2024
Type of proceedings
Infringement proceedings, counterclaim for revocation, application to amend
Parties
Claimant (Counterclaim Defendant): M-A-S Maschinen- und Anlagenbau Schulz GmbH and Katharina Schulz thereof
Defendant (Counterclaimant): Altech Makina Sanayi ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi
Patent(s)
EP 2 061 575
Body of legislation / Rules
R. 119, 263.1 RoP, Art 25, 26, 29, 47, 63, 64, 67, 68 UPCA
