Key takeaways
Direct infringement of a product claim turns on objective capability, not the manufacturer’s intended or recommended use.
For direct infringement of a product claim under Art. 25(a) UPCA, the decisive factor is whether the accused embodiment is, due to its nature and suitability for use, objectively capable of fulfilling the claim features; regardless of the direction of use the defendant primarily recommends.
A defendant’s warning that the product develops “high cutting performance” in a non-recommended direction can be read as an implicit admission of objective suitability to perform the claimed function in that direction.
An exclusive sub-licensee may sue under Art. 47(2) UPCA if the license chain grants the right to sue and the proprietor received prior notice.
Validity of the underlying license chain, including questions of self-dealing by a common representative, is assessed under the applicable corporate/contract statute (here, Michigan law), not under the law of the forum.
Facts on foreign law left uncontested by the defendant, despite the opportunity to object, may be treated as undisputed under R. 171.2 RoP.
Division
Local Division Düsseldorf
UPC number
UPC_CFI_56/2025
UPC_CFI_864/2025
Type of proceedings
Infringement action and revocation counterclaim
Parties
Claimant: Versah LLC
Defendants: HaeNaem Co., Ltd.; Adin Dental Implant Systems Ltd.
(Originally co-defendant, later withdrawn following settlement: Adin Dental Implant Systems GmbH)
Patent(s)
EP 3 402 420 B1
Jurisdictions
Germany, Austria, Denmark, Italy, Belgium, Finland, France, the Netherlands, Sweden
Body of legislation / Rules
Art. 25(a) UPCA, Art. 47(2) UPCA, R. 171.2 RoP
