- with readers working within the Construction & Engineering industries
- within Transport topic(s)
1 Key takeaways
Functional claim construction; disregarding additional features
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".
Pleadings on infringement of auxiliary requests (when filed with reply to statement of defence) do not represent amendment to the case according to R. 263 RoP
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).
Provisional damages
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.
2 Division
Local Division Mannheim
3 UPC number
UPC_CFI_735/2024
UPC_CFI_224/2025 (Counterclaim)
4 Type of proceedings
Infringement action; counterclaim for revocation
5 Parties
Claimant: TRUMPF Laser UK Limited
Defendant: IPG Laser GmbH & Co. KG
6 Patent(s)
EP 2 951 625
7 Jurisdictions
UPC; Germany, Finland, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Austria, Romania
8 Body of legislation / Rules
R. 30 RoP, R. 263 RoP
2026-02-24- Entscheidung – UPC_CFI_735-2024_redacted_signed_TS SMW AK (1)
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
