Home » UPC decisions » Local Division » LD Mannheim, 24 February 2026, Order of Court of First Instance, UPC_CFI_735/2024, UPC_CFI_224/2025

LD Mannheim, 24 February 2026, Order of Court of First Instance, UPC_CFI_735/2024, UPC_CFI_224/2025

4 min Reading time

Key takeaways

The patent is related to an optical device having a specific arrangement of a single input fiber for lighting. The accused embodiment comprises multiple input fibres, but only one of them is used for coupling input laser light; the other fibres are used for other functionalities that do not lie within the scope of the patent. For such an arrangement, the Court found that the features related to a single input fibre are literally infringed, because the additional fibres are irrelevant for the functionality targeted by the patent.

Regarding requirements on “diameter” and “overlap” of the input/output fibres, the Court applied a functional interpretation instead of a strictly geometric interpretation. In essence, “equal diameter” is interpreted as functional equivalence and “overlying” is interpreted as meaning “substantial coverage”.

Adapting infringement pleadings to amendments made with auxiliary requests (R. 30 RoP) are considered a clarification, not change of claim/amendment to the case that would require a leave under R. 263 RoP. The clarification only specifies that the claimant requests a decision on infringement in a narrower scope if the patent is revoked partially. As such, R. 30 RoP is considered lex specialis to R. 263 RoP (cf. LD Mannheim, decision dated April 2, 2025, UPC_CFI_365/2023, MN. 25 – FUJIFILM/Kodak).

Claimant requested provisional damages for costs related to filing the infringement complaint and costs related to purchase of the accused product (115k Euro).

Court dismissed the request partially for the costs related to filing the infringement complaint, but awarded the costs related to the purchase of the accused product since these costs were necessary for enabling the claimant to make necessary tests of the accused product in preparation of the complaint. Since the Court ruled that the accused product infringes the patent, it would have been unfair for the camplaint to wait for the completion of the proceedings on awarded costs.

Division

Local Division Mannheim

UPC number

UPC_CFI_735/2024

UPC_CFI_224/2025 (Counterclaim)

Type of proceedings

Infringement action; counterclaim for revocation

Parties

Claimant: TRUMPF Laser UK Limited

Defendant: IPG Laser GmbH & Co. KG

Patent(s)

EP 2 951 625

Jurisdictions

UPC; Germany, Finland, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Austria, Romania

Body of legislation / Rules

R. 30 RoP, R. 263 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