Key takeaways
If a defendant has used its own website to create the impression that there has been no patent
infringement, it may be justified under Art. 80 UPCA to not only allow the claimant to publish the
Court’s decision, but also to require the defendant to publish the operative part of the decision on
its website
The decision whether to permit publication should depend on a two step-test: (1) whether the claimant has a legitimate interest in publishing the decision and (2) whether the
defendant’s interests outweigh this interest (UPC_CoA_464/2024, Decision of 25 November 2025, para. 199-200 – Meril v. Edwards). As the Claimant has demonstrated a legitimate interest and the Defendants have not shown that their interests outweigh those of the Claimants, Defendant was ordered to publish the decision on public media (limited to five media outlets) and on its website (limited to one month).
A claim for a container “mountable to” an apparatus does not require the presence of the apparatus itself, but merely that it is suitable to be mounted on the apparatus
This claim construction was decisive for finding direct infringement, as the defendant’s argument that its product lacked the apparatus failed.
Inventive step was confirmed as Defendants did not show a pointer to the solution, which would have directed the skilled person from the realistic starting point of the prior art to a next step in the direction of the invention claimed in the patent in suit
Jurisdiction over non-EU defendants is established for acts in UPC territory and is deemed accepted if no timely preliminary objection is filed
The Court confirmed its jurisdiction over US and Taiwanese defendants based on Art. 7(2) of the Brussels Ibis Regulation and noted the defendants waived objections by not filing a respective preliminary objection.
An order for destruction is proportionate for a product as a whole, even if only parts are infringing, if the defendants do not demonstrate how they will ensure that the products will not be returned to a state that infringes the patent and then placed on the market
A request for a enforcement security will be denied if based only on general future economic uncertainty, where the claimant’s current solvency is undisputed
The Court held that the defendant must provide specific facts justifying concerns about the claimant’s ability to compensate for damages if the decision is overturned, which was not done here.
Division
Local Division Düsseldorf
UPC number
UPC_CFI_351/2024
Type of proceedings
infringement action
counterclaim for revocation
Parties
Claimant: Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, Japan
Defendants: Katun Germany GmbH, Germany; Katun (E.D.C.) B.V., The Netherlands; Katun Corporation, United States; General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd., Taiwan
Patent
EP 3 686 683
