UPC CFI, LD Dussseldorf , 16 April 2026 : Indirect infringement , no exhaustion in invention protected by a combination of claims.
06-07-2026 Print this page
Damages awarded for indirect infringement. (Article 26 UPCA, Article 68 UPCA , Rule 118 RoP).
Indirect Infringement (Article 26 UPCA).
If a patent claim protects a product consisting of two components, the existence of the other component is not a prerequisite for the objective elements of indirect infringement arising from the offering and distribution of one of the components.
This only becomes relevant in relation to the subjective requirements for indirect infringement.
For the objective elements, the sole decisive factor is whether the component in question is designed in such a way that it can interact with a second component designed in accordance with the invention, as intended by the patent.
The embodiment is a means relating to an essential element of the invention claimed.
Such an element is deemed to exist if the means is suitable for functionally interacting with one or more features of the patent claim in the implementation of the protected inventive concept.
No exhaustion – no entitlement to use the invention protected by combination of claims (1, 13, 14, and 15) (Article 26 UPCA, Article 29 UPCA)
The decisive point of reference for assessing exhaustion—and whether the technical effects of the invention are reflected specifically in a wear part—is the asserted claim.
If, as in this case, a combination of a main claim with one or more dependent claims is asserted, the technical teaching of this combined claim must be taken as the basis, and it must be examined whether the technical effect of the combined teaching is manifested in the wear part.
It is not, in principle, necessary for this to be the same technical effect that constitutes the invention according to the main claim.
