UPC CFI, LD Dusseldorf, 10 December 2025: Indirect infringement and its limitations

Revocation dismissed (Article 65 UPCA). Direct and indirect patent infringement (Article 25 UPCA, Article 26 UPCA). 

Amendment of claim by motion in brief after interim procedure requesting submission of evidence supporting information to be provided refused (R. 263 RoP) in so far as the claimant argued at the hearing that she had been prompted to submit the new application by the order issued by the reporting judge in the interim proceedings on 10 November 2025, this argument does not exempt her from setting out the requirements under R. 263 RoP. 

Standing to sue of exclusive licensee (Article 47(2) UPCA). Doubtful whether a finding of a transfer of claims for the past by the patentee to the holder of an exclusive license is necessary as Article 47(2) UPCA states that the holder of an exclusive licence is entitled “to bring actions […] under the same circumstances as the patent proprietor”. In any event, such a transfer has taken place. 

Claim interpretation – Statement of purpose (Article 69 EPC). The claim that a device is intended “for the continuous filtering of impurities from a plastic melt” constitutes a statement of purpose. The device must therefore be designed in such a way that it is suitable for the continuous filtering of impurities from a plastic melt. 

Substantiating of grounds for revocation (R. 25 RoP). If the applicant for a declaration of invalidity relies on a lack of inventive step to support their application, it is not sufficient merely to name the documents on which they base their challenge. Rather, it is for him to explain the disclosure content of the relevant documents and, furthermore, to set out specifically why and how a person skilled in the art would combine the individual documents and thus arrive at the claimed solution without exercising an inventive step. The defendant’s submissions do not meet this requirement. 

Indirect infringement – exhaustion regarding replacement part intended for use in claimant’s systems (Article 26 UPCA, Article 29 UPCA). To be assumed that the replacement or exchange of the part in question is normally to be expected during the product’s useful life and whether the public or consumers can therefore reasonably expect to be able to continue using the purchased product, or to use it on multiple occasions, by means of the replacement part. 

Indirect patent infringement - recall , removal from distribution and destruction (Article 26 UPCA, Article 64 UPCA). 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. 

No statute of limitation for damages sought as of September 2013 (Article 72 UPCA). Defendant interpretation that Article 72 UPCA imposes a time limit on financial claims relating to past events, finds no basis in the wording of the provision. 

Provisional damages require a sufficient factual basis (R. 119 RoP). Even though R. 119 RoP provides for the possibility of awarding provisional damages on a lump-sum basis, there must be a sufficient factual basis for such an award. Against this background, the claimant’s submissions must demonstrate that his claim is based on a plausible estimate grounded in specific facts. The claimant’s submissions do not meet this requirement.

IPPT20251210, UPC CFI, LD Dusseldorf, MAS Maschinen v Altech