Koninklijke Philips v Belkin (CFI, 13 September 2024)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By a decision on the merits of 13 September 2024 (UPC_CFI_390/2023), the Munich Local Division ruled on Koninklijke Philips’ infringement action against Belkin GmbH, Belkin International, Belkin Limited and several of their officers concerning EP 2 867 997 (wireless inductive power transfer, Qi-compliant chargers), and on the counterclaim for revocation. The division refused a stay despite the German proceedings, upheld the patent as granted and found that the attacked embodiments realise all features of claim 20. The decision is chiefly of interest for its approach to claim construction: an embodiment in the description falls within the claim only if the claim wording expresses it, but where several embodiments are presented as the invention, the claim terms are presumed to cover all of them. The three Belkin companies were held liable as infringers (injunction in eight States, acts in Germany excepted, information, damages, an interim award of EUR 119,000 and publication), while their three officers, who are not infringers, were ordered as intermediaries under the second sentence of Art. 63(1) UPCA not to perform their duties so as to enable infringement outside Germany.

Facts and procedure

The patent has effect in Germany, Belgium, France, Finland, Italy, the Netherlands, Austria and Sweden. Philips sought, among other things, an injunction, recall, information, provisional damages and publication. In Germany, the Federal Patent Court dismissed the revocation action on 12 July 2024 by a decision that is not final, and Philips’ appeal in the German infringement action was held inadmissible by the Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court on 18 April 2024. The defendants sought a stay and recognition of the Higher Regional Court’s judgment under Art. 36 of the Brussels I recast Regulation, with a reference to the Court of Justice in the alternative. The oral hearing took place on 2 July 2024.

The applicable law

The extent of protection is determined under Art. 69 EPC and its Protocol. The division relied on Court of Appeal case law holding that the claim is the decisive basis and not a mere guideline. A stay is governed by Rule 295 and Arts 29 and 30 of the Brussels I recast Regulation. A late amendment of the counterclaim falls under Rule 263.

Question

Should the proceedings be stayed in view of the German proceedings, and does a claim to a transmitter that « accepts or rejects » a request to enter the negotiation phase cover a transmitter that always accepts?

Decision

The stay was refused: the Federal Patent Court has ruled, a judgment of the Federal Court of Justice is not expected shortly, and the UPC, which has exclusive jurisdiction over the revocation action, gives a decision covering every State in which the patent has effect, whereas the German courts deal only with the German part, no infringement action remains pending in Germany. On construction, the division relied on paragraph [0046] of the description, which describes a transmitter that always accepts the request, and held that claim 20 does not require an ability to reject. The patent was held valid: no added matter, sufficient disclosure, novelty over D1, D2, D3 and D6, and inventive step starting from the Qi standard (D4). Document D7, filed with the reply to the counterclaim, was not admitted as an unjustified late amendment under Rule 263. The requests to amend the patent became moot.

Infringement was found: under the Qi standard, the transmitter answers the request to enter the negotiation phase with an acknowledgement, which is the claimed confirmation, the ability to reject not being required (section C.I.1). The concept of infringer is autonomous and, as in the Court of Justice’s Louboutin judgment, requires actively performing the acts of use oneself. The three Belkin companies did so, one as the central EU sales unit and authorised representative, another through its German website and its staff in charge of dealer relations throughout the EU, the third through the declaration of conformity, the belkin.de domain and the general terms. The Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court judgment concerns only acts in Germany, which are excluded from the claim, and calls for no recognition (section C.I.2.a and d to f). Participation of the officers as instigators or accessories was not substantiated, but they are intermediaries: managing a company is a remunerated service within the Court of Justice’s case law on Article 11 of Directive 2004/48, which creates a precondition for the infringement and allows it to be stopped, with no fault or breach of a duty of care required, their liability is however limited to the injunction (section C.I.2.b, c and g to i).

The injunction rests on Arts. 25(a) and 63(1) UPCA and excludes transmitters using Renesas chips. Recall, removal and destruction were refused for lack of any indication that they would be proportionate (Art. 64(4) UPCA), the companies must compensate the damage caused since 28 December 2016, provide information with invoices (Art. 67(1) UPCA and Rule 191 RoP) and pay an interim award of EUR 119,000 covering the expected costs of the damages proceedings (Rule 119 RoP), publication was authorised (Art. 80 UPCA), subject to penalties of up to EUR 100,000 per day (sections C.II to C.VIII). The defendants bear the costs of the counterclaim and five sixths of those of the action, and no security was ordered absent any indication of a risk of insolvency or enforcement difficulties (sections D and E).

Key points for practice

• National revocation proceedings limited to one national part carry little weight against a UPC action covering every State concerned, particularly where the final national ruling is not imminent.
• Claim terms are presumed to cover all embodiments presented as the invention. A functional limitation must find support in the wording.
• An officer of an infringing company may be enjoined as an intermediary under the second sentence of Art. 63(1) UPCA, with no fault or breach of a duty of care required, but is not liable for damages or for the measures reserved to infringers (sections C.I.2.c and C.III).
• Practical point: new prior art introduced at the reply stage is an amendment of the counterclaim and must be justified under Rule 263.2.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 20, 21, 25(a), 32, 34, 63, 64, 67(1), 68, 69, 80 and 82

Rules of Procedure

Rules 30.2, 118.5, 119, 191, 263, 295 and 354.3

European Patent Convention

Art. 64 and 69(1)

Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012

Arts 29, 30 and 36

Other provisions

Directive 2004/48/EC on the enforcement of intellectual property rights, Art. 11

Case law cited

Court of Appeal, UPC_CoA_335/2023, Düsseldorf Local Division, 6 September 2024 (UPC_CFI_166/2024), Nordic-Baltic Regional Division, 20 August 2024 (UPC_CFI_380/2023), SES-imagotag v Hanshow, Munich Local Division, 20 December 2023

Related decisions

• Koninklijke Philips v Belkin, 29 October 2024, Court of Appeal order on an application under Rule 223.

Prepared by Dhenne Avocats from the official decision, consulted on 10 October 2026. The database is updated every week, on Friday. Only the official text is authoritative.