UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, 16 April 2026: Parent company liability for infringement
04-05-2026 Print this page
Injunction granted for (partly uncontested) infringement claim (Article 25 UPCA). Parent company liability (Article 25 UPCA).Parent company liability (Article 25 UPCA). Defendant 4 could put an end to the infringing acts of Defendant 3 on the basis of its power to control and instruct its subsidiaries, but did not do so despite being aware of the infringing acts. Accordingly, Defendant 4 was responsible for the infringing acts committed by Defendant 3. Counterclaim for revocation rejected (Article 65 UPCA)(Cfr: IPPT20260224, UPC CFI, CD Munich, TCL Europe v Corning) The Claimant of a Counterclaim for revocation may seek revocation of the entire patent-in-suit, even if the Infringement action is based exclusively on a specific claim. The same applies to national parts of a European patent on which the Infringement action is not based, at least if the patent-in-suit is still in force. The contrary position of the Chinese courts is not relevant and does not alter the validity of the patent. It is not necessary to examine the validity of the dependent claims and there is no valid interest in doing so. Infringement must be specifically contested. A blanket statement that current products do not infringe does not amount to a proper contestation of specific allegations. To rebut infringement, defendants must substantiate that none of their products fall within the claim scope. If a party does not specifically contest alleged facts, the Court shall treat them as established without requiring proof. In this case it does not need to be examined whether evidence meets procedural requirements. R. 171.1 RoP does not apply in that case. It was sufficient that infringement in the past was not disputed; current infringement did not need to be decided.
