Home » UPC decisions » Local Division » Duesseldorf Local Division » LD Düsseldorf, April 16, 2026, Decision, UPC_CFI_779/2024

LD Düsseldorf, April 16, 2026, Decision, UPC_CFI_779/2024

4 min Reading time

Key takeaways

Where a patent claim protects a two-component product, the objective elements of indirect infringement are satisfied if the accused component is designed to cooperate with a second component configured in accordance with the invention. Whether such a second component actually exists, only becomes relevant at the level of the subjective requirements for indirect infringement.

It is irrelevant whether the features appear in the preamble or the characterizing portion, or whether they distinguish the invention from the prior art.

If a replaceable wear part embodies a key technical effect of the asserted claim combination, its replacement constitutes an impermissible “re-making” of the invention, not a permissible repair. Whether the key technical effect is embodied must be assessed based on the asserted claim, which must not necessarily be the main claim, but can also be a dependent claim.

A party may invoke more favorable national law for pre-UPCA acts but bears the burden of arguing it. A withdrawn opt-out only affects the court’s jurisdiction, not the applicable substantive law.

The Court found that features like a perceptible “snap-in” or specific angles for walls, which were mentioned in the description but not in the claims, were not required to find infringement.

Division

LD Düsseldorf

UPC number

UPC_CFI_779/2024

Type of proceedings

Main infringement action

Parties

Claimant: Brita SE
Defendant: Wessper Sp. z o.o.

Patent(s)

EP 1 748 830 B1

Jurisdictions

UPC

Body of legislation / Rules

Art. 26 UPCA, Art. 27 UPCA, Art. 29 UPCA, Art. 67 UPCA, Art. 68 UPCA, Art. 82 UPCA
R. 19 RoP, R. 265 RoP, R. 354 RoP


Was the article helpful?


Categories


Tags

Stay in the loop

Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.

* = Required field